Obama’s Education secretary calls for 12-hour school days, longer school year

If Education Secretary Arne Duncan has his way, kids would be spending a lot more time at school — and a three-month summer would be a thing of the past.


Duncan joked with attendees at a luncheon at the National Press Club this past Tuesday in Washington that he would like schools to stay open 13 months out of the year. Then he told the audience of over 100 that he seriously supports longer school hours.

“In all seriousness, I think schools should be open 12, 13, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, 11-12 months of the year,” Duncan said. “This is not just more of the same. There would be a whole variety of after-school programs. Obviously academics would be at the heart of that. But you top it off with dancing, art, drama, music, yearbook, robotics, activities for older siblings and parents, ESL classes.”

He continued by explaining that the American school calendar is antiquated and must be modified so that American students can compete at the highest levels internationally.

“Most people realize that our current day is based on the agrarian economy, and we don’t have too many kids working out in the fields nowadays,” Duncan said. “Schools in countries that are beating us are going to school 25-30 days more than us. If you practice basketball five times a week, you’re gonna be better than the people who practice three times a week.”


Although I am sure that Education Secretary Duncan is well intentioned, I find several faults with his reasoning.

Firstly, his assertion that our current school year is based on a agrarian economy where children were needed to work at home on the farm is, basically,  an urban legend.  An actual agrarian school calendar would schedule vacations in the spring (during planting) and the fall (during harvesting), not during the summer.

In the 19th century, most schools operated year-round. Moreover, vacation periods were not necessary because compulsory attendance laws did not exist in most states. Schoolchildren who needed to work on the family farm during critical times of the year would simply stay home. 

The modern school calendar originated in the late 19th century and was made standard for all American public schools. It was  believed that it would be physically and mentally harmful to subject children to months of instruction in unbearably hot and crowded school buildings, thus necessitating a long summer break. Thus, the modern school calendar was a response to turn-of-the-century urbanization, not agricultural practice.

Secondly, Secreary Duncan's assertion that by simply increasing the number of days and hours of school instruction will result in a higher level of student achievement is also flawed.  suggests that student achievement is dependent on a variety of factors; the quality of instruction, teacher accountability; parent involvement ; student motivation; measurable results; etc., and not simply the length of the school day.

Extending the school calendar without making improvements to the curriculum and teacher quality would simply subject students to additional hours of unproductive instruction. Indeed, high-performing countries are successful because they employ strong leaders, focus on measurable results and maintain very high expectations for all teachers, parents, and students. Our public schools should focus on the same.

Here in New York City we have a Teacher's Union that is more focused on making political donations to politicians to attain their union centric agendas rather than focusing on the needs of their students.  Teachers accused of serious wrong doing spend years, with full pay, in "rubber rooms", awaiting discilinary action that never happens because of contractural tenure provisons. 

Fnally, extending the school year would also prove to be an expensive proposition especially when Secretary Dunca starts recommending the establsihment of a whole litany of "after school" actvieies such as "dancing, art, drama, music, yearbook, robotics, activities for older siblings and parents, ESL classes." 

Who is going to pay for all of this?  That answer is obvious, you and I will. 

Just once I would like to see or federal government respond to a problem in a thoughtful, insightful and rational  manner instead of resorting to the old "more is better" attitude where we simply throw money at a problem in the hope that it will correct itself.