by Stuart Singer

It is no revelation that some students need more time than others to master certain subjects.  The task of a school is to find ways to give students the opportunity for that extra attention.   Also needed is a realistic understanding that adolescents do not automatically seek out additional study time even when struggling.  The problem, then, for administrators is two-pronged—creating more access while providing compelling incentives.  One of the latest proposals was outlined in a Washington Post article by Jay Mathews “Do we need lunch periods, or even cafeterias?” 

A Problem with No Easy Answers

As Mr. Mathews aptly notes, whenever the proposal to lengthen the school day to improve student achievement is floated it sinks like a rock to the bottom of the educational idea pond.   The “agrarian” calendar used by the majority of systems (and so appropriate a mere 150 years ago) also appears unlikely to disappear any time soon.  Thus, the newest innovation as outlined in the Post’s article is the extension of the lunch period from thirty minutes to an hour.  The concept is simple—give students the freedom during the extra half of an hour to move about the building seeking extra help for the classes in which they need some remediation.  During this time they can also socialize, relax and escape the peer pressures that can sometimes be experienced in the cafeteria.  It is important to note that what follows here will not be a discussion about nutrition or the aesthetics of a lunchroom.  I will leave those concerns to others.  This conversation is about the best way to meet the academic needs of students.

One Problem, Three Approaches

For the sake of comparison I will briefly outline three remediation plans that I have either experienced, observed or read about.  Two of them utilize time within the established school day and the third requires work after the final bell.

The Extended Lunch Period expands the time allotted for lunch from thirty to sixty minutes.  During this time students can eat lunch, relax with friends or seek out teachers for additional instruction.  This system seems to leave most of the decision making in the hands of the students.

The Embedded Remediation Period creates a separate class period in the school day when students have the opportunity to receive help from teachers.  Most of these models have periods of about thirty minutes with passing time on either side.  Some assign classrooms or locations to students while others are more free form.

The After School Academic Support Plan requires students who are receiving grades of “D” or “F’ to attend thirty to forty minute supplemental sessions with their classroom teachers immediately after the school day ends.

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

In the interest of transparency let me state from the beginning I consider the after school approach vastly superior to either of the other two options.  Let me explain why. The three major weaknesses of the two in-school plans are the loss of instructional time for everyone, a lack of precision in targeting the appropriate students to be assisted, and no clear incentive for attending.   The extended lunch option removes thirty minutes of class time each day; the embedded option removes even more time due to the additional minutes needed for transitions between periods.  Even in the best-case scenario, a half an hour per day subtracted from the typical high school 180-day year results in a loss of 90 hours of instructional time.  This reduction translates into the equivalent of three weeks removed from each class.  The embedded program loses nearly four weeks.  But does such a loss of contact time really matter?  I believe the following anecdote goes a long way toward answering this question.

Several years ago I was attending a district-wide department chair meeting and the number one topic was the drop in standardized math scores throughout the district.  For the first time in years instead of rising, the scores were uniformly lower at nearly every school.  Our assignment was to find the cause.  When I returned to school I asked my best Algebra 1 teacher for her explanation.  Without hesitation she responded with one word—“snow”.  The previous year we had unusually bad weather and we missed two weeks of school.   While she had time to cover the material for the test, her normal two-week review period was lost.   With the loss of just ten school days an entire system saw a drop in student scores.  Under either of these two aforementioned plans this loss of time would be even greater and impact every student not just the ones who are struggling.

Both of these options result in every student being affected by the needs of a small portion of the population.  While no one would argue that time to decompress is harmful or think only weak students benefit from time for small group assistance, if remediation is the primary goal for reconfiguring the school day, then it becomes quickly obvious that too large a net is being thrown out to catch a very small number of fish.  Significantly reducing instructional time in every class and for every student is far too high a price to pay for avoiding after school remediation.

Hitting the Bulls Eye

A decade ago my school developed the After School Academic Program (ASAP). For the purpose of the current discussion the broad outline is as follows.  Based on their professional opinion, teachers would target students who they felt would benefit from an additional thirty to forty-five minutes of instruction each week.  Individuals who were receiving poor grades for attendance or discipline issues would be excluded.  Such problems needed to be addressed in a different manner.  The list was then sent to the appropriate administrator.  Students would be assigned to an afternoon session that would begin within fifteen minutes of the end of the day.

Late buses were provided to give transportation home if needed and all extra-curricular activities could not begin until ASAP concluded.   The consequences for not attending—administrative detention (no teacher involvement)—were consistent, enforced and effective.  Teacher participation was voluntary even though the after school program was within contract time.  The primary concern for the teachers that volunteered for ASAP was that students were receiving the help that they needed to be successful in their classes.

It seems obvious to me that mandating attendance in an after school program for those who will benefit is a superior option to removing class time from every student.  But I will let the words of an assistant principal I overheard in the hallway express the best answer.  When a student told the assistant principal that he had missed ASAP because of his part time job the response was clear and direct.  “Son, let me be very clear about what is important here.  If you don’t pass your classes, that part time job will be your fulltime job for the rest of your life.”

I think that says it all.