Time and Learning. ERIC Digest.
Since the National Commission on Time
and Learning released Prisoners of Time in 1994, the use
of time in school has come under increasing scrutiny.
The academic day, stated the commission, ought to be
reengineered to include fewer noninstructional
activities and offer a minimum of 5.5 hours for core
subject teaching and even more to meet enhanced state
standards (Kane 1994).
Over the years, educators have sought to
enhance learning time through such reforms as block
scheduling and year-round schools. The 2001 No Child
Left Behind Act envisions efficient use of time as an
avenue for improving learning.
This Digest summarizes the relationship
between time and learning and examines what states and
districts across America are doing to make better use of
time during the school day. (See "School Calendars," by
Bill Metzker, ERIC Digest 156, for a discussion of
issues surrounding length of the school year.)
HOW IS TIME USED DURING THE SCHOOL DAY?
School time can be conceived as an inverted pyramid:
Allocated time, on the upper, widest tier, consists
of the total time in the school day or school year;
in the middle tier is engaged time, or the time
actually spent in learning activities (sometimes
called "time-on-task"); at the bottom, and therefore
narrowest part of the inverted pyramid, is academic
learning time, or the period during which an
instructional activity correlates with a student's
readiness to learn and results in actual learning
(Aronson and others 1999).
In addition to instruction in core
academic subjects, the academic day includes a variety
of activities such as music, drama, and sports/physical
education. Many people argue these have inherent value
in the education of youth and should not be sacrificed.
Ineffective ways of managing the school
day can reduce time for teaching, according to a study
of instructional time conducted on urban elementary
students in Chicago. Site-management as well as
classroom-management factors combined to diminish actual
learning time. Teachers, on average, spent 23 percent of
their time on noninstructional activities. Special days
such as Halloween Parties and Science Fairs reduced
instructional time. The continuity of teaching was lost
when instruction focused on preparation for standardized
tests, which were administered midyear. Analysis and
reform of administrative practices may increase schools'
ability to squeeze more learning time from the day
(Smith 2000).
IS MORE TIME THE ANSWER?
In schools where time is not being used well, it is
unlikely that the addition of more days to the
school calendar will lead to higher academic
achievement by students. But if a high proportion of
the school day is already being devoted to academic
learning time, that is, time when the subject matter
being taught is a good "fit" with the student's
ability and readiness level, and if high-caliber
instruction is occurring, extending the day or year
is likely to improve achievement (Aronson and
others). Increasing learning time in that part of
the day when students are most likely to be engaged
in the learning process may yield small gains.
Some people recommend structural changes
in the use of time to slow down the day, giving students
opportunities for reflection and investigation. The
Responsive Classroom(r) model, for example, explores how
the quality and quantity of educational time may benefit
both students and teachers.
This model incorporates several systemic
changes: Narrow the scope of the curriculum and lengthen
time blocks for indepth learning; take time at the
beginning of the school year to establish clear
expectations for students and create an atmosphere of
trust; allow time for contemplation and review
throughout the year; adjust the daily schedule so that
it is more closely aligned with students' learning
patterns; ensure that playground time is both a priority
and useful; and design the school schedule so that
parents, teachers, and staff can interact often (Wood
2002).
ARE THERE OTHER WAYS TO INCREASE
LEARNING TIME?
Opportunity for student learning can be increased by
ensuring that teachers are employing effective
classroom-management strategies, since undue time
spent attending to behavioral disruptions or other
disciplinary issues reduces instructional time.
Consistently providing curriculum and instruction
appropriate for the age and ability of students also
contributes to student learning. Finally, student
engagement and learning will tend to increase if
teachers foster student motivation through a
repertoire of interesting, innovative, and
thought-provoking instructional endeavors rather
than offering activities as repetitive seatwork
(WestEd 2001).
Opinions vary on whether block
scheduling enhances learning. A popular reform during
the 1990s, block schedules offer ninety-minute instead
of forty-five-minute classes. While supporters assert
that a longer class period makes for better learning, a
new study by Iowa State University suggests a link
between block schedules and declining scores on the ACT
assessment test (Coeyman 2002).
One empirical study suggests that a
shortened school year, with an added intercession period
for low-achieving students, may enhance overall student
achievement. Besides a general improvement, a positive
impact was noted for students identified as economically
disadvantaged on state assessment tests (Byrd 2001).
Time to learn doesn't necessarily stop
at the end of the academic day. Given the diversity of
student learning abilities, policymakers must view
achievement as a complex issue rather than as a problem
to be addressed with narrowly focused solutions. Higher
achieving students spend more time in structured
learning activities outside school. After-school hours,
weekends, and summer months all provide opportunities
for additional learning to take place (CCSSO 2001). In
particular, after school learning has been found to
improve students' sense of competence and classroom
engagement (Grossman and others 2002).
Summer extended-learning programs that
focus on economically disadvantaged students in their
earliest grades offer promise in closing the achievement
gap (Boss and Railsback 2002).
WHAT ARE STATES DOING?
All states except Minnesota require a minimum number
of school days per academic year. While some of
these days may be used for inservice training, all
but four states require a minimum number of
teacher-pupil contact days. Colorado, Nebraska, New
Mexico, and Oregon require a minimum number of
hours, depending on the grade level (Education
Commission of the States 2002).
Some states use extended-learning
programs to add instructional time, though some of these
programs are primarily designed to provide a safe,
structured place for students to be after school if
their parents or guardians are at work. California's
program promotes after-school community/school
partnerships to foster academic support along with safe
places for students from kindergarten through ninth
grade. Illinois offers year-long extended learning with
a summer emphasis on low-achieving third- through
sixth-grade students. Massachusetts also provides
funding to districts offering extended learning time to
students needing help with state assessment tests.
WestEd notes that a more cost-effective
approach than increasing allocated time statewide "may
be to target extra time to specific schools-or
students-with the greatest learning needs. A state could
stipulate a range of options for using 'extra time'
funds so that local educators can tailor strategies to
particular student or school needs or community
circumstances."
For example, Kentucky boasts an
intervention, as opposed to remedial, initiative.
Minnesota's enrichment program and Texas'
extended-learning plan focus on disadvantaged students
and low-achieving districts (Brown 2001).
States "can also help by reviewing and
streamlining state mandates that take time away from
teaching and learning as well as by providing school
districts with needed information and guidance about
best practices" (WestEd). Oregon and New Hampshire
officials are examining infringements on instructional
time, while the state school board in North Carolina
proposed eliminating three annual state tests for
similar reasons. New regulations in Massachusetts
require a minimum of 900 to 990 hours of structured
learning time (Black 2002).
WHAT FINANCIAL FACTORS SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED?
The cost of increasing allocated time on a statewide
basis "is estimated at millions-or in some states
tens of millions-per added day" (WestEd). In
California, for example, the first year of a
proposed thirty-day extension of the school year for
middle-schoolers was predicted to cost $100 million.
Therefore, making better use of time in the existing
school year was suggested as a more viable option
than adding more days to the school calendar
(California Legislative Analyst's Office 2001).
A careful cost/benefit analysis of
proposed calendar or schedule changes is critical.
Quantifying the cost per minute is one such method. By
dividing the total school budget by the number of
minutes the school is open, a principal can derive a
per-minute value. With this figure, the cost in learning
time of specific activities-a thirty-minute assembly,
for example-can be calculated. Increases of learning
time may likewise be evaluated (Slosson 2000).
Given the high cost of adding time and
its uncertain relationship to enhanced learning, schools
must focus on maximizing student engagement and raising
the quality of teaching. The conceptual model of Total
Quality Education (TQE) recommends implementing certain
student- centered elements in the classroom: giving
students personal responsibility for learning; ensuring
that students understand how the curriculum is
beneficial; cultivating students' appreciation of the
learning process; teaching students to assess their own
progress; and helping students to set learning goals and
understand how learning activities are related (Walker
and others 1998).
Teachers can benefit from professional
development on improving time management. The course
content should be aligned with students' readiness for
the material. Teachers must know the subject matter well
and see it through their students' eyes in order to
seize opportunities to better correlate content with
students' interests and experience (Aronson and others).
RESOURCES
Aronson, Julie; Joy Zimmerman; and Lisa Carlos.
Improving Student Achievement by Extending School:
Is it Just a Matter of Time? San Francisco: WestEd,
1999. 21 pages. ED 435 127. http://web.wested.org/online_pubs/timeandlearning/1_intro.html
Black, Susan. "Time for Learning."
American School Board Journal 189, 9 (September 2002):
58, 60, 62. EJ 651 986. http://www.asbj.com/2002/09/0902research.html
Boss, Suzie, and Jennifer Railsback.
Summer School Programs: A Look at the Research,
Implications for Practice, and Program Sampler.
Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory,
September 2002. 45 pages. http://www.nwrel.org
Brown, Cynthia G. "Extended Learning:
What Are the States Doing?" Principal Online 80, 3
(January 2001): 12-15. EJ 619 644.
Byrd, Jimmy K. "Student Achievement: Is
Equality Really Necessary?" Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle, Washington, April 10-14, 2001. 24
pages. ED 452 273.
California Legislative Analyst's Office.
"Analysis of the 2001-02 Budget Bill. Longer Middle
School Year." http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2001/education/ed_08_esy_anl01.htm
Coeyman, Marjorie. "Popular Reform Draws
Mixed Reviews." Christian Science Monitor (July 16,
2002): 13. http://www.csmonitor.com
Council of Chief State School Officers.
Students Continually Learning: A Report of
Presentations, Student Voices and State Actions.
Washington, D.C.: Author, April 2001. 113 pages. ED 455
007.
Education Commission of the States.
Scheduling/School Calendar. Denver, Colorado: Author,
2002. http://www.ecs.org
Grossman, Jean Baldwin; Marilyn L.
Price; Veronica Fellerath; Linda Z. Jucovy; Lauren J.
Katloff; Rebecca Raley; and Karen E. Walker. Executive
Summary, Multiple Choices After School: Findings from
the Extended-Service Schools Initiative. Philadelphia:
Public/Private Ventures, June 2002. Full-text version is
available at http://www.ppv.org.
Kane, Cheryl. Prisoners of Time:
Research. What We Know and What We Need To Know.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Commission on Time
and Learning, September 1994. 61 pages. ED 378 685.
Slosson, James. "Mission Minutes:
Balancing Cost & Value." High School Magazine 7, 9 (May
2000): 37-39. EJ 606 493.
Smith, BetsAnn. "Quantity Matters:
Annual Instruction Time in an Urban School System."
Educational Administration Quarterly 36, 5 (December
2000): 652-82. EJ 619 584.
Walker, Glenda; Robert Audette; and
Robert Algozzine. "Increasing Time Through Total Quality
Education." ERS Spectrum 16, 3 (Summer 1998): 11-16. EJ
573 422.
WestEd. "Making Time Count." Policy
Brief. San Francisco: Author, 2001. 2 pages. http://web.wested.org/online_pubs/making_time_count.pdf
Wood, Chip. "Changing the Pace of
School: Slowing Down the Day To Improve the Quality of
Learning." Phi Delta Kappan 83, 7 (March 2002): 545-50.
EJ 640 968.
