Longer school year equals bigger burden

By: Kim Ciesla

Arne Duncan, the Cabinet secretary in charge of education, favors longer school years. He claims U.S. students have a bigger disadvantage because the United States has a shorter school year than other countries. "It doesn't matter how poor, how tough the family background, socioeconomic challenges," Duncan said. "Where students have longer days, longer weeks, longer years--that's making a difference."

Duncan compares United States students to students of other countries with this statement. Why? How does he measure "success?" By grades? Test scores? Placement in the workforce? Countries like China, Japan and India favor status in the workforce and placement in the caste system. In the United States, our society used to be brought up on the importance of family, and success on an individual level. We shouldn't be comparing ourselves to other countries in the first place when our societal values differ from other countries.

United States schools, however, face unique challenges of the No Child Left Behind Act. Many school administrations would love to have every child succeed, but there will always be students who are common sense smart as opposed to book smart. Not everyone can be a straight-A, perfect test-taker. Every student has their strengths and weaknesses, and half the time students get frustrated when they don't understand the material being taught. Instead, we need to focus on how students learn, and teach to meet their needs before we lengthen school years, weeks or even days.

In addition, many schools across the nation lack the necessities for a longer school year, especially during the summer months. Most older school buildings do not have air conditioning units, making classrooms extremely uncomfortable to pay attention, even in the early summer months. Also, take into account the school budget (taxes!) would increase in order to pay faculty and school expenses needed for a longer year.

Duncan's motives create another issue. Does he feel more for the parents who work full-time and the children left to be raised as latchkey children, or does he really feel for the students? While his viewpoints might be convenient for full-time parents, latchkey children shouldn't be the concern of the education secretary.

To improve the success of students, Duncan should start by restructuring the concept of tenure. I have had teachers in middle school whose classes I've learned nothing--simply because they have tenure and feel they don't need to exert themselves. These teachers come for a paycheck, not because they love what they do.

My seventh grade English teacher: perfect example. Spelling tests went from 20 words to 12 or 13, just because she didn't feel like giving the verbal part of the test anymore. Homework was cut from four times a week, to two. I hated that class purely because I didn't learn anything! Students can't be motivated to learn when teachers like this don't encourage learning in the classroom.

Tenure should be an honor, a thank-you for hard work. Some teachers truly express enthusiasm for their students’ success, and those teachers should be rewarded with tenure. Not teachers who slide by for three or five years and then get offered tenure just because nothing "seemed" wrong during an evaluation that takes place for 45 minutes a few times a year—a total act if you were to ask the students who attend the class every day.

Before Duncan tries to initiate longer school periods, he needs to figure out what will truly enhance success in the classroom. Students currently have low motivation to attend school. Our government needs to listen to the people who know why before they take on programs that will make the problem worse.