More time in class isn’t necessarily the best solution, Mr. Obama

There has been talk out of the White House about revamping the typical schedule of American public schools by lengthening the school day and holding class more days a year.

President Obama has been quoted saying, “The challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom.”

Arne Duncan, secretary of Education, has said, “Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy, and not too many of our kids are working the fields today.”

Quotes like these are indicative of how the Obama administration hopes to reform education and make America more competitive in a global economy.

The idea of lengthening the school day and the school calendar is certainly not unfounded; however, this is a typical Democrat solution — focusing on quantity as a means of policy instead of quality. Making students spend more time at school may indeed lead to better test scores, but many things could accomplish this goal.

The question that must be answered before instituting this policy is whether this is the most efficient way to increase the level of education of America’s future. The most efficient way will increase test scores with the least amount of increase in spending in schools.

There are many side effects to our economy if the White House continues to push for a lengthening of school days and years. The most obvious side effect is an increase in costs on local school systems. Schools would be stuck with higher costs from hourly employees, utilities, supplies, and there would be pressure to raise salaries.

School systems cannot afford to handle these cost increases — schools can barely afford to get by as is. If the national government mandates more school time, there better be funding from the national government to back it up.

The federal government would likely give schools funding, but the amount would be absolutely staggering on a national scale. How can our country afford to fund such an undertaking?

Consider that America’s fiscal health is at risk and the federal government is not even enumerated the power to regulate education (unless you argue it affects interstate commerce).

There are many alternatives to improve education in America. Maybe instead of pumping money into school, the White House should look at ideas that do not involve money.

The in-school answer to better test scores lies with teachers. Finding inexpensive ways to improve the quality of teaching and streamlining what is being taught is an easy solution.

However, it should be noted that America has the best teachers in the world — but everything can be improved.

There is also the out-of-school aspect of learning, which also affects learning and test scores — however, the government has little role in determining how parents should rear their children.
The idea of lengthening the school day and calendar, while it might sound like a good option, is in reality a costly solution. It focuses on pumping up the quantity of time and money before focusing on the quality of education.

America has great schools that can certainly be improved, but only efficient means of reform should be used.

Richardson’s column runs each Wednesday. He is a teacher at Floyd T. Binns Middle School.