Should we extend the school year?

Yes
Adam Urbanski:
It's a wise investment in education

Education Secretary Richard Riley's proposal to extend the time we now have in schools deserves careful consideration. After all, he is not proposing that all teachers and all students have a year-round school. Instead, he is urging states and local school districts to consider whether teachers and students have the time they need within the constraints of the current school year. And, in my view, most teachers and some students do need more time.

Teachers need more support as they strive to help all their students meet higher standards. When asked what kind of support would be most effective, teachers invariably cite lower class size and more time. The additional time they yearn for is both for their students and their own preparation and learning.

Unlike college or university professors--or, for that matter, professionals in other occupations--America's teachers have precious little time for planning, preparation or professional development. More time to think about our work and to learn from one another would undoubtedly improve our practice and our effectiveness. That's what teachers in virtually all other industrialized nations value and enjoy. We need and deserve no less.

The question of time is directly linked to the success or failure of the standards movement in American education. At last, we are asking all students to meet higher standards. But not all of our students are able to do this without additional help from their teachers. Thus, some teachers will need more time to help those students who otherwise would be less likely to attain the higher standards now demanded of them. This translates into additional classes, extra tutoring, after-school programs or summer sessions.

Admittedly, not all students will want or need such extra help. But those who need it, especially students in districts and schools with a high concentration of poverty, should have the access and the opportunity. It's a matter of equity and fairness. And as we pursue excellence in education, we must recognize that equity is an inseparable component of excellence. Excellence without equity is not excellence, it is privilege.

The needed additional time, Riley acknowledges, will require additional investment of money. Teachers cannot be expected to work a longer school day or year without a commensurate increase in compensation. But the trade-off is well worth it. Indeed, as the Secretary points out, "we can no longer get teachers on the cheap," and we must rectify the gap in compensation between teachers and their counterparts in other fields with the same level of required education.

More time for some students who need it and for all teachers who deserve it, along with appropriate pay raises, would help to professionalize teaching and would increase the prospects for all our students to achieve higher standards of learning. It's an investment in the future of our children--one we can't afford to miss.

Education Secretary Richard Riley recently expressed support for making teaching a year-round profession. In his state of education speech on Feb. 22 in Durham, N.C., Riley also proposed that schools move to adopt year-round teaching within the next five years and pay teachers better salaries for the additional time spent in the classroom or for time spent in courses to improve their own skills.

Riley's goal is ambitious, and there may be school districts that will be interested in his approach. However, I believe the issue is not how much time a teacher spends in the classroom, but the quality of that time. Next to parents, the most important part of a child's education is a well-trained teacher in the classroom.

There are many excellent teachers in our classrooms today, but we need more. Only one-fourth of our students tested in 1998 have proficient writing skills, and 47 percent of our adult population functions at the lowest levels of literacy. Many of our neediest students, both academically and economically, are sentenced to exile in failing schools, ensuring that they will never have the opportunity to join mainstream America. We should be providing these students with the best education possible, which means the best teachers possible.

The lack of high-quality teachers is hurting the chances of students in reaching their full potential. Republicans in Congress debated with the Clinton-Gore administration about the wisdom of adding 100,000 unqualified and uncertified teachers rather than focusing on their education and skills. In response to this problem, the House last year passed the Teacher Empowerment Act (H.R. 1995), which would provide federal funds and allow local decisions about teacher hiring, bonuses and professional development.

The bill contains provisions to help reduce the number of teachers instructing in subjects other than those in which they were trained; improve recruitment through signing bonuses; provide incentives to keep high-quality teachers in the profession; provide funds for merit pay; and expand alternative routes to teacher certification to attract top professionals from a variety of fields.

Keeping teachers on the payroll year round, as Riley proposes, could cause a 25 percent increase in local school budgets and would exacerbate the quality problem. Riley's stance is curious, given the administration's position that the federal government must step in to pay for school construction and to hire more teachers because local governments do not have the money to do so themselves.

Federally mandating year-round teaching would be a definite step in the wrong direction. Year-round teaching should always be a decision left up to states and, ultimately, school districts.

Rep. Bill Goodling (R-Pa.) is chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO - 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW - Washington, DC 20001