Improving Student Achievement by Extending School: Is It Just a Matter of Time?

by Julie Aronson, Joy Zimmerman and Lisa Carlos
©1998 WestEd. All rights reserved.

Recent History

The question of time in education, specifically how much to require, has been visited periodically throughout the history of the American school. Yet the basic September-June school calendar that originated in America's rural past has remained largely intact.

Then, in the early 1980s came The National Commission on Education Excellence and its seminal report, A Nation at Risk, which urged education leaders to look at three big issues: expectations, content and time. Of this last, the report argued that if American students were to compete effectively in a global economy, they would need to spend substantially more time in school.

This call for more time raised public consciousness on the issue, but once again, the traditional school calendar proved solidly ensconced. Although proposals to extend the school year were considered in 37 states during the seven years following A Nation at Risk, very few were actually approved (2). Moreover, none of the states passing legislation during that time increased the school day beyond 6-1/2 hours or the school year beyond 180 days, which was and remains the high end of the U.S. norm. Instead, legislation focused on addressing unusually low standards in certain states, merely increasing the time so that it was closer to the national norm. (3)

In fact, some states and districts that have tried to significantly increase school time have subsequently backed off. The Oregon legislature, for example, in 1991 adopted the Education Act for the 21st Century, which was intended in part to lengthen the school year from 175 to 220 days over the next two decades. But in 1995, before the first incremental jump was required, the Legislature repealed that provision of the act, having determined that the state simply couldn't afford it. (4)

Meanwhile, in 1991, prompted by continued concern about America's poor showing in international student achievement comparisons, federal legislation established a special commission to look specifically at the relationship of time and learning in America's schools. Prisoners of Time, the 1994 final report of the National Education Commission on Time and Learning, notes that while American education had been progressing on two of the three "big issues" mentioned in A Nation at Risk --content and expectations, as embodied in the emergence of standards-based reform — it had stalled out on the third issue. Alluding to the persistence of the traditional school calendar, the report notes that "learning remains a prisoner of time …. American students will have their best chance at success when they are no longer serving time, but when time is serving them."

Moved in part by the sentiments underlying that admonishment, by the pressures of global competition and by concomitant domestic pressures to improve achievement, education policy makers and practitioners across the country have once again begun focusing on the role of time in education. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, during the current legislative session, 14 states have been considering bills related to the length of the school year. (5)

Given the continued interest in extending education time and given the high expectations that often accompany such interest, it is essential to start focusing in on the facts: what research exists about how time affects learning and what does it say?