GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

Not so fast there. The Chancellor’s District seemed to be a way to pad teachers and staff pockets with extra money. What was so great about it? Schools in the CD would go from 20% proficient to 40% proficient, with enormous sums spent for that paltry progress. What’s so great about that tremedous waste of money? Again, seems to have been a great program for adults, a waste for kids.

This story also gives the lie to the common perception that unions are a barrier to lengthening the school day. Certain members of the business community have traditionally been stronger opponents of reform measure.

Simply extending the school day is not the answer. More time in school overall may be *an* answer for *some* children that may be effective within a *certain* kind of school model, like the Generation School (I believe that is the name of it) in Brooklyn. But simply more seat time and more test prep (because that’s what most extended day programs come down to now) will not make children better students who are less likely to drop out, nor will it improve instruction.

Now, on the other hand, if you had a school day that included more professional development and collaboration for teachers, less time babysitting (yeah, I said that), a day that included more sports, physical activity, life skills, arts opportunities, one-on-one tutoring, even maybe just some time for kids to go to the library and read or do research, that might work, particularly for disadvantaged students who experience little to none of the aforementioned in their usual lives. That might help more students feel engaged with and confident and happy in their schools, which in turn might lead to higher achievement and fewer dropouts. But I currently work in an extended day program, and simply doing reading skills with my students–even with high-interest texts, group work, games, whatever–is not flying. They are absolutely done by 4:00 and want nothing more than to go home.
Extending the school day alone, without broadening the scope of what is offered for students and giving teachers more breathing room, will just give you burned-out teachers and frustrated, tired kids.

Why all the hubbub?

It’s a no-brainer that a longer school day means more education…unless, of course, what the school is offering is doing more harm than good, in which case I would argue to SHORTEN the school day.

Like every other reform initiative, as one poster implied, “more time” is no silver bullet. It takes a purposeful, community-wide investment in a full set of reforms to move forward, not a magic wand reform.

Just curious: from the Mulgrew perspective, why this particular initiative, now, and not, say, smaller class size, or peer review, or something else?

I am going to take a giant leap here (risking the enmity of millions) and say that we should ban the misleading phrases “low performing schools” and “failing schools.” When did we stop talking about low-perfoming students or failing students?—Probably about the time that Bloomberg and Klein took over. Of course some schools had (or have) problems, with teachers, administrators, or the physical plant, but that is certainly not the situation with the majority of schools that are being closed down. Columbus, for example, has very nice classrooms, a cheerful cafeteria, and a newly renovated library. Our staff is made up of experienced, highly educated teachers who love their subject areas and who spend endless hours writing lessons plans, making up tests, and preparing special projects. Most of our students appreciate our efforts and are serious about their work, but there all also many–too many–who constantly cut class or who come to school just to socialize. Some students have jobs that conflict with their school schedules–and they choose their job over school, while other students take weeks off for long family vacations or to go to out-of-town funerals. Is this the fault of the school or the faculty? Of course not, except in the eyes of Mayor Bloomberg. Our students are not babies; they are young men and women, and some of them make very bad choices. When we also add in our new immigrants, many of whom had little or no schooling in their native countries, the result is a set of statistics that are less than excellent. However, the Columbus staff never gives up; we keep looking for new ways to help struggling learners to succeed and to give failing students a second or even third chance to get their lives back on track. So, no matter what Bloomberg’s numbers say, Columbus is NOT a “failing school” ; in fact, I would say that we are succeeding admirably in our efforts to offer a quality education to an extremely diverse and challenging population.

Laura, I am an author of the CD study you cited. We looked at all the relevant city and state the data and found that there was a statistically significant improvement in student learning in literacy among students attending CD elementary schools. This improvement was NOT a result of the usual games the school system played to show “improvement” in these schools when there was none.
The CD was a comprehensive intervention that provided small class sizes; repairs to the physical plant, if needed; replacing principals, if needed; removing some ineffective teachers; a LOT of professional development with on-site coaches and strong district-level support; an extended day program; a combination of literacy strategies — costing about $2500 per student more than the cost of the “average” student’s education. If the school was overloaded with special needs children (a primary cause of schools winding up on the SURR list), the # of special ed kids in the CD school was reduced to an “average” level.

The lack of improvement in math in CD schools we attributed to the fact that the CD intervention at first did not include a focus on math. In fact, the intense focus on literacy probably crowded out math instruction. In sum, our research team found the CD Initiative to be an effective intervention in NYC elementary schools. Nevertheless, it was terminated in 2003 by Chancellor Klein.

Dotty – I don’t think what I said is contradicted by what you said. You found statistically significant literacy gains in the CD versus the SURR schools not in the CD. But while those gains were statistically significant, they were hardly dramatic, particularly when you consider the level of investment or the scope of interventions there (and I suspect that cost figure you cited doesn’t account for facilities improvements because those costs are in capital budgets not school budgets). I actually find it very disturbing that a potential explanation for the lack of gains in math was due to the intensive literacy focus during the initial years of the CD. We’re talking about actual children moving through school here. They need quality math and literacy programs (and much beyond those disciplines) every single year – period. One would think that with the scale of investment in the CD — smaller classes, professional development, curriculum, coaching — that the educators could have begun tackling both these considerations from the jump. That is what the students deserved, and more importantly, what they needed.

Meanwhile, while there were modestly better gains in the CD schools vs. non CD SURR schools, it’s in no way clear what drove those gains. Was it reduced class size? Teacher quality? Extended day? Did each of those things contribute incrementally or was one intervention particularly making a difference. In a world of limited resources, that question is essential — because if one of the interventions was the primary driver of improvements, you’d want to focus on scaling that intervention up rather than replicating the entire, uber-expensive, not wildly successful slate of reforms in the CD. And this is even more true when you consider that both the groups of schools you looked at served gradually lower-need populations each year, which may in itself have been the primary driver of schoolwide gains (though not necessarily improved individual student achievement) in both groups.

Finally, my biggest problem with all of this is that in trying to figure out what works, I’d rather look to the schools serving high-need kids that never landed on the SURR list in the first place. Those schools existed in 1998-99 and they exist today, and frankly, those are the models where I think you’re likely to find evidence for what really works to help all students succeed. (Based on my anecdotal experience as a parent and educator, my totally unscientific guess would be that the most successful schools have excellent educators and leaders, who work collaboratively to plan curriculum across disciplines and grades.)

Correction on the 3 paragraph: To your defense, often these problems should NOT* begin to get noticed at the High School level, but from the primary education.