Leave Them Kids Alone
Where's the evidence that longer school days produce smarter kids?
Children can be irritating—especially your children. That is why the notion of a school year extending 12 months is not completely revolting. But alas, the government is not a baby-sitting service. Not yet. Let's hope not ever.
In the midst of grappling with a scattering of thorny issues, President Barack Obama took time to lend a fatherly hand this week. Your little Jake, it seems, doesn't spend enough time under the gaze of the state. As it turns out, Jake is at a tragic disadvantage when competing against Yuri from Kazakhstan.
If you believe this tale, the administration has an answer for you: Kill summer vacation, and add a few hours to the school day. "Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here," Secretary of Education Arne Duncan claimed. "I want to just level the playing field."
He, generously, wants to level the playing field for your children. Hey, admittedly, I'm not a product of the dazzling Hungarian school system, yet I can't help but wonder: With the pitiful performance of so many of our school systems—Duncan left Chicago's schools with a more than 40 percent dropout rate—doesn't it seem counterintuitive to extend this interaction?
Where, after all, is the evidence that longer days translate into smarter kids?
We will hear all about Sweden, Belgium, and Denmark's longer days and high test scores, but as The Associated Press points out, 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)."
In the U.S., we also piddle away more funding per student on education than nearly any other nation in the world. Employing Duncan's decidedly non-Singaporean calculus, this would necessitate a cut in education spending to achieve higher results and "even the playing field."
According to numerous studies, the most consistent indicator and predictor of a child's educational achievement is parental involvement. So while more time in the classroom may be beneficial to kids who lack parental participation, why would the administration peddle an across-the-board policy change that separates all kids from their parents?
If Duncan's theory is true, why do many school districts across this nation attain high standards of excellence with the same funding and a full summer vacation? Why do Asian-American students consistently outscore their counterparts in this country, within the same school systems and with the same class times?
Moreover, shouldn't local parents and educators be the ones making decisions about curricula and scheduling rather than having to adhere to the mandated vagaries of the newest "reform" efforts from Washington? (Some charter and public schools already shorten summer vacations.)
There is, of course, no denying that many school systems in the nation are failing. Students often are trapped in them. They need help … to get out.
And though it horrifies some among us that Slovenian eighth-graders, on average, are more proficient at algebra than our kids, the Slovenian economy does not reflect this aptitude. Our achievement never has been about math scores. It's about a system that allows productive citizens to thrive. Unlike in nations chock-full of whiz kids, in this country, adults work. Children play.
When we don't work, we import. Surely my kids—if I can afford to send them to college—will be taught by a product of the Indian educational system. I'm cool with that.
But just as certain, the president's advice would hold more weight if he started sending his own children to public schools before mandating that your child be stuck in one during his or her God-given summer vacation.
David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Children can be irritating-especially your children
As a parent, I can confidently say that other children are almost always more annoying than your own children.
Ah Children, can live with them, can't kill and eat them.
can't kill and eat them.
Dress up like a polar bear.
You know, my son is one of those kids who would do well in a year round school environment. But I have a serious fucking problem with some dipshit saying we need to change the whole system. My son would do well because he loves to learn. In an environment where other kids went to school year round for the same reason, then it would be great.
But being in school with the thugs that occupy public education today? Oh yeah...that'll help the test scores.
I learned more about the real world in my first year out of school than any other time. Keeping kids in school 144 straight months is a recipe for idiocracy.
In the U.S., we also piddle away more funding per student on education than nearly any other nation in the world. Employing Duncan's decidedly non-Singaporean calculus, this would necessitate a cut in education spending to achieve higher results and "even the playing field."
Is that more funding in real dollars, or is that normalized for median income? Because spending half as much in real dollars in Kazakhstan would be spending a good deal more in terms of percentage of income.
With all due respect, it seems many "school children" are on permanent vacation anyway.
"According to numerous studies, the most consistent indicator and predictor of a child's educational achievement is parental involvement."
Politicians never want to deal with this fact because it amounts to telling the very people who vote them into office that they are doing a bad job at parenting. Instead, the politicians focus on abstract data - hours at school, dollars spent, test scores, etc. That way they can blame the politicians on the other side of the aisle rather than their constituents, which are the people actually responsible.
It's not a smart idea. The top private schools in the country have a shorter school year than the public schools. Improving school systems
has nothing to do with funding, and everything to do with parents and the community.
I guarantee that teachers will not do this for free, so the US will pay the teacher unions more.
If parental involvement is really the most significant factor, why would we want to reduce the time the kids spend with their parents?
My wife stays at home with the kids and she spends a lot of time helping my older daughter with her homework and general school skills. We are partly feeling like for all the time she spends in school the teachers should be helping her more. We have even considered pulling her out and homeschooling her - not for any idiotic reasons like we don't believe in evolution (we do) but because we figure we could teach the same curriculum effectively in 1 or 2 hours a day one on one instead of 6 in a class room setting.
If anything, putting the kids in school longer will reduce parental help with homework because of a) less actual time with the kids, and b) we all figure that more time will improve results so we will be less inclined to use our free time to help with educational matters.
They also don't take into account that lots of kids work after school or during the summer. Some of them to pay for college, some to buy cars and/or pay for gas and insurance. And if kids are at school all the time, when are they going to work to earn money that they spend on all the things they buy? Kids drive the movie industry. Kids spend on music and gadgets. Kids spend on food when they're not at school.
If I were a small business owner in Anytown, USA, I'd not be very happy that my business will lose patronage and my taxes will surely go up to pay for teachers to work more. You know damn well the teachers unions aren't just going to give up their summers without a hefty increase in pay.
"I guarantee that teachers will not do this for free, so the US will pay the teacher unions more."
Bingo!
Pol Pot.
That is all.
With all due respect, it seems many "school children" are on permanent vacation anyway.
True, America's schools are infested with drugs. If we want to have smarter kids we need to do a better job of keeping drugs out of schools.
"According to numerous studies, the most consistent indicator and predictor of a child's educational achievement is parental involvement."
We should mandate a certain number of hours per week of parental involvement.
A longer school day is a horrible idea. Kids are burned out enough and need time for other activities. Keeping them longer is just to babysit.
Longer school year can work and is being tried in many states. Why the federal gov't feels the need to get involved, however, is beyond me. Why exactly do we need a federal department of education anyway?
If I were a small business owner in Anytown, USA, I'd not be very happy that my business will lose patronage and my taxes will surely go up to pay for teachers to work more.
Good point.
You know damn well the teachers unions aren't just going to give up their summers without a hefty increase in pay.
They need the summer off because it is a very stressful and demanding job. Probably there would be other teachers for the summer.
Let's just take the damn money and give it to parents for each "A" their kid gets. Each individual parent will have to figure out for themselves how many hits on the crack pipe they can get for each "A".
The REAL problem in our school system is that they waste valuable class time with useless classes and other bullshit (trust me, just left high school). Instead of focusing on, say, math or science, we're forced to take electives: shitty classes that are irrelevant to our interests (for instance, Sociology). On top of that, the main focus is on English which is stupid because everyone knows how to write, and Math and History are more important. Then, of course, some schools like to focus on Sports, the stupidest of stupid ideas, because it teaches the kids to value physicality over intelligence, and prompts some schools (namely our old rival school) to allow kids who are Failing to play (one of our football players Failed, transfered schools, and was allowed to play). So really the only reform needed in school is to cut out all the Bullshit like electives and focus more on Math, Science, and History. A longer day would just piss off a lot of kids.
To heck with this year round schooling discussion, I'm just here to point out that the School's Out LP
Why the federal gov't feels the need to get involved, however, is beyond me.
Name something, any-goddam-thing that a congresscritter hasn't proposed federal involvement with.
It's the nature of the beast.
Whether this is by mistake or on purpose, this plan will further damage the family. Hell, when will the kids even see their parents let alone bond with them and learn from them.
What do the schools plan to spend the time on? They do have a plan, right? Teaching more verses to the "Mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama" song?
How long, I wonder, before the government just says that children belong to the collective not their parents.
Oh yeah ... like the government schools don't already waste enough of the kids' time.
Over the twelve years allotted for primary and secondary education, it really doesn't take more than a few hours per day to attain proficiency in the 3R's as well as scientific and cultural literacy.
It does, however, take a lot of time to brainwash kids to love Big Brother.
I expect that the additional time would be spent in compulsory volunteer service and other activities to indoctrinate the kids into believing that their pathetic existence as individuals has purpose only when they are part of a collective working for the good of others.
Hell, when will the kids even see their parents let alone bond with them and learn from them.
Sadly, for some parents that is more of a feature than a bug.
One of the justifications I have seen for year round schooling is that "kids forget what they learned over the summer". If that's the case than the kid didn't fucking learn anything did they. You don't forget how to do math or forget how to read or write over the summer.
Personally, I would hate to see the school day extended or see year round school for my son. I would much rather he spend some of that time playing in the neighborhood, or getting a job, or visiting our relatives in Europe or anything than sitting in fucking school being taught obedience and how not to question authority.
Sadly, in Chicago, many of the schools are experimenting with year round schooling, and I think it's going to catch on. One of the other reasons is that many of the high crime neighborhoods would be better off if the kids were in school rather than hanging out on the streets during the summer.
Just do away with the government indoctrination camps schools, save "society" about $7,000 per student per year, sell the buildings to the highest bidder, and help kids become better educated and better adjusted.
On top of that, the main focus is on English which is stupid because everyone knows how to write,
While I agree with you that (at least in California) the main focus is on English, I disagree with your statement that "everyone knows how to write." As a product of public schools myself, you'd be surprised at the abysmal level of literacy among high-school sophomores.
Ultimately, though, federal and state governments need to understand that not every kid is cut out for college. Forcing liberal-arts heavy curricula onto the next generation of forklift-drivers and auto mechanics is a waste of taxpayer money and high-schoolers' time.
the main focus is on English which is stupid because everyone knows how to write
Ahahahahaha! No, not even close. I work part time as an editor, and not even all self-proclaimed writers know how to write. And if you read samples of writing from random high school kids, it's cringe-worthy.
You could pick that statement apart, but I think the original poster meant there is too much emphasis on English courses. It carries over into college as well. I do know folks that took all of the courses and still have trouble with spelling; however, they are in the top 1% in math. I'm glad that recent HS graduate is thinking and responding.
ChicagoTom, One of the other reasons is that many of the high crime neighborhoods would be better off if the kids were in school rather than hanging out on the streets during the summer.
Sounds like imprisonment without due process.
What about childhood obesity?
Sitting around on their asses in school a couple more hours each day and all summer sure isn't going to help them lose that tummy.
I thought that with tough times and cutbacks in welfare that problem was going to go away on its own, but I haven't seen any cuts.,
Sounds like imprisonment without due process.
I suppose the argument would be that it isn't imprisonment -- they are being kept in school for their own protection....to keep them out of trouble and safe from the gang bangers and other ne'erdowells that are on the mean streets of Chicago.
I was home schooled for seventh and eighth grade. I'd estimate I spent an average of 2 hours a day studying or doing schoolwork. Then while in daydreaming in high-school, as a senior in english class, I remember a day when I had to actually pay attention. I was actually being taught something I didn't already know, for the first time in four years of high school english.
I am appalled at the lack of efficiency in school, and shocked whenever I hear teachers complain about them not having enough time to meet expectations.
I too wonder what business the federal government has in our education anyway. It's certainly not authorized by the constitution, and hasn't shown that they are helpful in anyway, at least that I know of.
Summer vacation is the greatest thing in the world. It is the only time most people get where there are really no specific demands on their time. To take that away from kids would be cruel and awful.
I suppose the argument would be that it isn't imprisonment -- they are being kept in school for their own protection....to keep them out of trouble and safe from the gang bangers and other ne'erdowells that are on the mean streets of Chicago.
Growing up in the SF Bay Area, the "gang bangers and other ne'erdowells" were the ones they locked on campus with the kids who actually wanted to learn. The school parking lot was divided by race, with blacks and "cowboys" constantly beating each other up over "turf".
"Summer vacation is the greatest thing in the world. It is the only time most people get where there are really no specific demands on their time. To take that away from kids would be cruel and awful."
Liberals hate children. That's why they blame them for irritating, meddlesome laws (it's for the children!), why they like to attack Christmas, and why they think it's tragic when celebrities are punished for raping them. It probably also helps explain why they are more likely to favor abortion. It makes sense though, since every child is a sign of failure of their part -- 60-80 years worth of environmental damage right there.
We loose a little bit of money on each transaction but we make up for it in volume
Longer school hours won't do much, longer school years will do a lot.
Yes Kids DO forget over the summer, and yes they do forget because classes aren't properly structured. If you spend two weeks learning fractions, and then don't use them again for 3 months, guess what you have to do in 3 months, learn fractions again.
Repition, over a long period of time is the key for "really" learning something.
So by changing the curriculum, and using a longer school year, you could spend a bit more time on repition, and MUCH less time relearning stuff again, and again.
Maybe you were one of the smart ones that could learn something once and not have to worry about it again, but obivisouly that is not the case for most kids.
Kroneborge,
I'm going to have to make you stay after school and write the word "Repetition" 200 times on the blackboard...
After you've demonstrated a certain skill with a concept, any repetition after that is known as busy work...which is a total waste of everyone's time.
Liberals hate children........That's why they blame them for irritating, meddlesome laws (it's for the children!), why they like to attack Christmas, and why they think it's tragic when celebrities are punished for raping them. It probably also helps explain why they are more likely to favor abortion. It makes sense though, since every child is a sign of failure of their part -- 60-80 years worth of environmental damage right there."
And Republicans love children. Physically. Like Mark Foley. Lovin' touchin' squeezin' kind of love.
The dropout "problem" would go away if we stopped expecting kids who are obviously not college-bound to hang around through 12th grade. In Germany, for example, such kids stop at 10th grade and then enter trade schools or apprenticeships (although there has long been pressure to make the schools more "egalitarian" i.e. by treating all kids like identical units).
Today's drop out problem becomes tomorrows "real America".
[zing!]
James, I agree. I wouldn't imagine it would take that much work to make sure the skills stick.
So for example, if you had 50 math problems to do each week, if say 5-10 of them covered previsouly used stuff, that would probably be sufficient. Just enough to keep the ideas and concepts fresh.
And it wouldn't have to be the exact same stuff each week either. Shit I bet oftentimes you could tie it in with the new stuff (like Trig with Calc etc).
IMO, the school system needs to work smarter AND harder. We don't need all of our kids to go to college, but for those that do want to go, they need to be prepared. For far to many of our kids that isn't the case. And portion of that at least is the strucuture of things.
Well it was only a matter of time until they extended the logic of honors classes. The biggest complaint about high school honors classes in FL is their incessant need to work you like a dog. Instead of honors classes using learned skills and showing students their real-world applications, they gave you 50 repetitive math problems instead of 25. What incentive do students have to succeed if it's rewarded with more work?
Isn't it awesome the person in charge of schools was in charge of one of the most failed school systems in the nation? Now he can ruin your schools too! Now you know what it's like to live here in Chicago.
"Sounds like imprisonment without due process."
Just one more incentive for the kids to drop out.
"I suppose the argument would be that it isn't imprisonment -- they are being kept in school for their own protection"
And who better than Chicago to implement protection rackets?
What incentive do students have to succeed if it's rewarded with more work?
Can't you see? Honors classes were meant to prepare the most talented students for the arrival of the Messiah, Whose apostles will ask us to work for the sake of work itself, because "rewards" and "incentives" are too much like the evil "profit" He was anointed to abolish.
He is the Crown of human existence. It is for His sake that we labor, for He is good to all and shows mercy to all, not for the fulfillment of our own selfish desires.
Keeping the kids in school 30% longer would require 30% more teachers or paying present teachers 30% more. Bet the NEA is behind this.
Lengthening the school day? Sure. Ending summer vaca? No way.
That is all.
Keeping the kids in school 30% longer would require 30% more teachers or paying present teachers 30% more. Bet the NEA is behind this.
Of course they are. A teacher who (often) makes more than I do for 180 days a year* of work is now going to demand more pay for working the same number of days a year as the rest of us do.
*my ex-sister-in-law who is a public school teacher vociferously corrected me, and told me that due to snow days, they may work as many as 192 days. A chest-clutching moment to be sure.
"A teacher who (often) makes more than I do for 180 days a year* of work is now going to demand more pay for working the same number of days a year as the rest of us do."
Isn't this a form of wealth envy?
Here's something I learned in (private parochial) school:
Correlation does not equal causation. Just because there seems to be some kind of correlation between two variables does not mean that the two are connected or one causes the other.
Kroneborge, that's the problem. Repetition is the definately the key to learning. Unfortunately educators have abandoned it for more vague and abstract techniques. Resulting in children never learning the fundamentals and thus being unable to do math and science. This, I believe, is the intended consequence of the government's semi-education efforts.
I'm against adding one second to the school year. They are doing enough damage in the 1146 hours they already get.
IMO, it all started when we stopped beating kids at school. Remember, spare the rod, spoil the child, lol
But alas, writes David Harsanyi, the government is not a baby-sitting service. Not yet.
I wanna call bullshit on that one. They were already daycare facilities at least 10years ago.
If parental involvement is really the most significant factor, why would we want to reduce the time the kids spend with their parents?
I've got plenty of answers to that, but they either sound crazy or they give me the chills....
Crap, spelling and preview errors again. And on the education thread, of course.
This idea of extending the school year is just another sad example of blinkered and short-sighted thinking by the politicians. Have they even considered any of the downsides? For example: Letting out urban schools in the late evening, increased cost for cooling huge buildings during the summer months, increased need for maintenance personnel, increased usage of teaching supplies and...well the list could go on for some little while, couldn't it? The point is that school districts are already stretched to or beyond their budget limitations and probably would require even more taxes to support. But the politicians (especially but not only the Dems) are too in love with unfunded mandates and their own infinite wisdom to see any problems.
You may want to study up on Japan a bit before spouting off. Most middle-school and high-school students are in school for a couple more hours after class for whatever club they belong to (bukatsu), and then run off to after-school cram schools (juku) to study like mad for the tests that will get them into better schools. They get home just in time to do some more homework and then go to bed.
Also, you may be conflating the minimum standards vs what is actually practiced, and actual instruction hours vs hours in school.
Why spend more days doing something that's not productive?
I hardly think the problem is that kids are not spending enough time in school. Increasing the days in school is as bad a solution as spending more money.
Duncan and Huberman's efforts to make schools "year - round" is without substance. It's just another way of rearranging the 178 days that are currently bunched between Sept. and June. If anything it just confuses the cops who try to bust ghetto kids for truancy (get the F*&k off me pig, I'm at a Track E school, sheeeit!) I'd much rather have August free than 3 cold dark weeks in december.
And Democrats really love children. That's why drugging them and buggering them in all three holes while they plead for you to stop isn't rape-rape. That's why downloading porn showing a tied-up three-year-old screaming as she's being raped isn't important news and a guy doing some dirty texting to a bunch of older teen pages while they snicker about it to each other somehow is.
That's also why, if George Soros drugs and buggers you, Lamar, it won't be rape-rape either. It's only rape-rape if a Republican does it.
Wow, that account is rather disturbing, and here I assumed it was merely some "statutory rape". Which mind you, I think is a total farce. However... if this isn't "rape-rape" (as in real rape, as in, NON-consensual sex), then I don't know what is! Why do they bother defending someone for doing this and fail to defend some poor 19 year old boy for having consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend.
I just wish that only those who actually raped someone were charged with rape, and not a lot of people say who are 19 and have sex with their teenage future wife.
Why doesn't Whoopi complain about all of the bogus "statutory rape" charges and "child pornography" charges levied against couples having consensual sex, instead she defends this piece of shit. What the fuck is wrong with liberals? (and neo-cons for that matter)
Japanese and Korean students go to school all year round.
Japan and Korea also have some of the world's highest suicide rates, with high rates of teenage suicide.
Correlation does not imply causation, but it does wink suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing the words 'look over there'.
Some of you have commented on boycotting public school students, etc.
I'm a product of the public school system, although not the typical one...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_County_International_Baccalaureate_School
Believe it or not, we actually had to take two years of a class called "Theory of Knowledge" which was a class in epistemology, and this was a public school...
Crazy I know...frankly, I think I lot more will be accomplished if you separate the kids who actually want to learn and achieve something from the kids who need to be in a babysitting service.
Much more efficient that way - for the students, for the teachers, for the tax payers...
There is significant research showing starting the school day later benefits students, especially in the high school years. There is a biological reason why teenagers stay up late and have trouble rising for the early call back to school. A few school districts around the country have found, even pushing the start of school back 30 minutes, improved grades, behavior, and attendance.
Wouldn't it be nice if the school system would teach my child the 3Rs and let me worry about character education, sex education, and manners?
i went to both a public and private highschool and in my opinion public school teachers do more harm than good after 6th grade.
Too bad for you. Some public school are really good. I attended those schools and we treated them like privates.
People like you were not allowed to attend. The PTA made sure of that. And they forced boundary changes, and chased away skanky stupid parents and kids like you that would drag the place down.
The REAL problem with public schools is that the messed up kids like you really wrecked it for the good kids.
Is it time to pull the plug on the bad kids.
It is. They and you had their shot. It's over. It's done. You wasted the opportunity.
Too bad for you.
"Wouldn't it be nice if the school system would teach my child the 3Rs and let me worry about character education, sex education, and manners? "
******************
Rote is out. Thinking is in.
So we wind up with kids who think about 2 + 3.
. . . WHATS THE POINT OF THIS?! MORE TORTURE?! MORE PAIN?! MORE TIME WITH CRUEL BULLIES AND EVIL TEACHERS?!
"Unlike in nations chock-full of whiz kids, in this country, adults work. Children play."
Well said. This policy is downright mean. As if kids' lives don't suck enough already.
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets
is good