Comment on a Four Day School Week

I would like to comment on a classmate's posting, titled Structure and Governance, regarding a proposal to shorten the school week.

I am all for it. But, I disagree with why the current government is proposing it. I believe the only reason the current government is proposing to shorten the school week is to cut costs.

I would like to suggest why shortening the school week may not be a bad idea.

First of all, what is the link between classroom achievement and number of school days? A study from 2007 A study from 2006, shows that Canadian 15-year-old students are among the top in world in math and science. China and Finland were the only other countries that outperformed Canada. According to recent figures, Chinese students and Finish students attend classes for 251 (Barakett and Cleghorn, 19) and 190 a year, respectively. Whereas Canadian students are in school for 185 days a year (Barakett and Cleghorn, 19). This would suggest that more school days equals better performance. But this is not necessarily so. Israeli students are in school for 215 days a year, Swiss students for 207, Italian 204, and English 192 (Barakett and Cleghorn, 19). It could be argued that more school days in the year does not necessarily mean higher student achievement. A 2006/2007 study, of nine-year-old Canadians suggests that other factors such as gender, socioeconomic background, “readiness”, province of residence, and whether the student is from an urban or rural setting, affect student performance. Another study out of the United States, suggests that student performance is more closely related to teacher performance than number of school days. This might be the case, considering all Finish teachers hold at least a Master’s degree, and that the Finish school system is so decentralized that Finish teachers have more room to act as autonomous professionals (source). It can be argued that more school days do not necessarily mean better student achievement. How a teacher teaches may be more important than the number of days the teacher teachers (Barakett and Cleghorn, 18).

There are a few caveats. The danger lies in how these data are used. Was the study of nine-year-old Canadians simply conducted to find that there was a connection between teacher performance, the students’ socioeconomic background, and readiness and achievement just so that those making the decisions can draw attention away from the connection between number of school days and student achievement? Notice that this study does not mention anything about number of school days. We should also question the value of comparing ourselves to other countries.

Caveats aside, I would like to promote a four day school week for another reason. There is caution in this reason because it may suggest that I am dreamer. In the above posting, my classmate mentions that children might go unsupervised because parents/guardians would be at work while the students are out of school. I would like to ask why is it imperative for parents to work five days a week? Who says that working five days a week benefits anyone but the corporate bigwigs? Is a five day workweek absolutely necessary for the economic well-being of a country? [As an aside: A preliminary study shows that long work hours present potential health risks.] What would happen if parents only worked four days a week? If parents only worked four days a week, then they could look after their children. This suggestion is a little simplistic, but would it not work? If schools only operated four days a week, teacher performance might improve too. Remember back to the argument that the better the teacher performance the better the student achievement. From having sat in a teacher’s lounge, it seems to me that teachers may be strapped for time. Imagine if teachers had an extra day of the week to plan, partake in professional development, or simply spend time with their own families. Would teacher performance increase?

I think implementing a four day workweek would take a radical change, which may not happen any time soon. But I think it would be great to dream that a four day workweek would be possible and that it would be out of this world if the shift towards a four day workweek started because of a four day school week.



Addendum:

Just a comment on the issue of not having enough time to teach the curriculum:

I would like to think that we teach children not curriculum. The curriculum is a vehicle for learning, not learning itself. In other words, just because teachers follow the curriculum and cover everything in the curriculum, it does not necessarily mean that the students are actually learning.



Work Cited

Barakett, J, & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of education: An introductory view from Canada. Toronto: Pearson.

Lost Male . . .

I am lost, lost in theory. Let me explain. Social feminist theory suggests that gender is a social construct. I buy that. South Asian culture has what is considered a third gender. The members of this third gender are known as hijra. The notion that gender is a social construct is empowering because it means that the concept of gender can be changed. For example, it means that women, just because they are of the female gender, do not have to marry, stay at home with the children, and never amount to anything more, if they so choose. Great! Let’s challenge the system, challenge perceptions, and create a more equal society. Is the potential not there?

Before I digress too much, I would like to explain my confusion. I am trying to wrap my mind around the feminization of the teaching profession. I think that it is an issue, but how is it an issue? Is the feminization the result of norms reinforced by a patriarchal ideology or can it be better explained by the concept of male hegemony? Either way, what I really want to know is this: if gender is a social construct, why does it matter if a teacher is male or female? Are there not people already that if you didn’t meet them in person, e.g. maybe in a chat room, that it would be impossible to tell the gender? Theoretically, could a male and female not share the same values, norms, etc, and be equally qualified and skilled as a teacher, and the only difference would be their sex? How would it make that much of a difference to the students?

Is my take on applying the theory sound? Am I out in left field on this? Should I feel encouraged when people tell me that it’s good that I’m becoming a teacher because the children need more male teachers? Do the children need more male teachers or do they just need teachers that will inspire them?

Theoretically Speaking . . .

I am not a cog. Or should I say that I do not want to be a cog in a machine that perpetuates the status quo.

So how does my ambition to be more than a cog fit in with the readings on social theory?

It is necessary to see the role of schools and education from multiple perspectives. However, a functionalist theory that suggests schools are simply reinforce norms and values that perpetuate inequality leaves me a more than a little depressed. I am a dreamer and believe in the value of education as a means to advance people beyond their current standing. I tend to fall in with the critical theorists that suggest that schools can address social inequalities and initiate social change.

Taking a look at the theories allows me a chance to explore the impact that education can have on the individual and society. It brings to light, for me, the effects of unintentional repercussions of my actions. For example, if I consistently only respond to the boys during a science lesson, I might be sending a message to the girls that only boys can understand science. As a teacher, I possess the power to shape the childrens’ attitudes towards race, gender, and class. My own attitudes towards inequality, and the role schools play in generating change, will shape the way that I teach.

Sure the education system leaves students behind, but that does not mean that it has to. Theory can be used to understand the root of possible problems. The research of Bowles and Gintis does suggest that the leading determinant in educational success (or lack of success) is based on the socioeconomic background of the students. Should this not suggest to those seeking change that maybe, on top of an education/school experience, something should be done to improve the living standards of children?

In closing, I can see a trend towards education leveling the playing field. I believe that the new Social Studies curriculum will give students the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to examine the status quo, see the inequalities, oppression, and shortcomings, and make change. Children are the future.

Is Bill 206 the Answer?

I felt inspired after reading a classmate’s blog. She takes the time to comment on current affairs that are relevant to education. I am inspired to follow the news more closely and comment on news that may affect me as a future educator. Not only will I raise my own awareness of current issues in education, hopefully, I will also be able to develop my skills on predicting the effect of the current issues on the future of the education system.

I would like to start by looking a proposed bill that may legally ban bullying.

A recent series of hazing rituals by Alberta students has raised the issue of bullying. Heather Forsyth, MLA for Calgary Fish Creek, has proposed Bill 206, which is intended to enhance student and teacher protection from bullying. One clause in particular, has the potential to legally ban bullying.

Sure passing this bill may put more stress on the teachers and administrators by increasing the amount of paperwork when dealing with bullying. It may tax the police because they will be required to become the new experts on bullying. And, if bullying cases go to the courts, then the courts, and possibly penal institutes, will feel the burden.

My concern on the issuer goes beyond the burden facing the teachers, administrators, and judicial system. Bill 206 may narrow the definition of bullying to acts such as physical and emotional abuse, theft, and so on, and to see bullying only in those terms instead of a symptom of a larger problem. Every action has a reason and the better we can understand that reason the better we can take action to solve that problem. An example came up in class in which older students were stealing lunches, often by force, from younger students. After a little investigation, it was determined that these students were from households that were neglecting to feed them. The school implemented a lunch plan, providing the much needed meals to the older children, and the students no longer stole lunches. Seeing this example of bullying in a larger context allowed the school to take action to solve the problem, instead of trying to remove the problem.

Speaking of narrowing things down, Bill 206 only seems to deal with the bully. From what I understand, bullying involves the bully, the bullied, and the bystander. Bullying is not a cancer that can be cut out. If a bully is removed from somewhere, he or she has to go somewhere and in that new somewhere odds are that he or she will still be a bully, even if that new somewhere is some form of incarceration.

Overall, this narrowing of the definition bullying and shift of focus to only the bully may not be the best solution to the problem.

Is bullying an issue? Absolutely. Do we need to take action? Absolutely? Is Bill 206 the best action? I am not so sure.

Come to think of it, have people under the age of 18 stopped drinking and smoking yet?

Autonomous Practitioner

Today we were introduced to the concept of the teacher as autonomous professional. To be an autonomous professional, the teacher combines the skills developed through training, such as lesson planning and constructing valid and reliable tests, with a bigger-picture basis of knowledge that allows the teacher to understand the whys and wherefores of his or her teaching practices. The teacher reflects on and learns from his or her own decisions, which empower him or her to act instead of react. As a reflective practitioner, the teacher deftly sidesteps the trap of trained incapacity. Trained incapacity is a quagmire for critical thinking in which the individual may, unfortunately, assume that there is only one fixed way of reaching a goal, for example, believing that selected response tests are the only way to assess student learning. As a critical thinker, I can, in turn, model critical thinking skills to my students with the desired result of inspiring them to be critical thinkers.

This is all great and I agree that as a teacher I should know why I am assigning a research paper instead of administering a selected response test. But how autonomous can I be? Are there not limiting factors? Curriculum could be a limiting factor. Law dictates that I teach certain topics to students at set times in their academic career. In the beginning, I will not have any say over the curriculum. And the curriculum itself may not see revisions for another ten years anyway. Federal and provincial politics can also limit a teacher’s capabilities. When parties in power tighten their budgets, funding to education may decrease, which may limit a teacher’s access to resources, increase class sizes, hamper programmes for students with exceptionalities, and so on. Speaking of teaching resources, are publishing companies not in competition for selling their text books? Who wins in this competition? Are schools that can only purchase the most affordable textbook really receiving the best? [Just as an aside: Is it ethical to make a profit on something that is a basic right, i.e. education?] Curriculum, budgets, and access to resources, just to name a few, are factors that may be beyond my control but will influence my capacity to teach. Choices are being made for me that will limit my autonomy.

Since this is my first entry, it may resemble more of a misguided rant. As I gain more insight into the bigger picture and hone my critical thinking, I will find my stance on the issues and my voice to express it. Read, respond, reflect, or reject this blog as you see fit.