Endnotes

¹ As it turns out, American students are not so far behind in the amount of absolute time they spend in school each year as compared to their foreign counterparts. The American school year, by and large, ranges in length from 175 to 180 days, while the typical school day runs about six hours. In nearly 80% of some 38 countries surveyed in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, the school year varies from about 190 to 209 days, with the mean being 194. Yet some countries whose students outperform ours in mathematics and science actually have a shorter school year. In Sweden, for example, whose students were among the high performers at the senior high school level, the school year is only 170 days long. This type of time variation even among top performing countries leads TIMSS researcher Senta Raizen to conclude that the issue "isn't time per se, but how it's used." (personal communication 4/6/98)

² Barrett, M.J. (1990), as cited in Funkhouser et al. (1995).

³ IBID.

⁴ Personal Communication, Tanya Gross, Education Program Specialist, Oregon State Department of Education.

⁵ Because no one has been closely tracking this issue in recent years, knowledge about the intent, history or experience of different states, districts and schools remains sporadic and largely anecdotal.

⁶ Hossler et al. (1988). In large part, this is due to the complexity of the undertaking. Given the many factors that influence student achievement, as well as the number of reforms often being implemented in one school, attempting to separate out the impact of one variable -- in this case time -- is extremely difficult. In addition, few districts or schools have extended their calendars to the degree that has been called for, limiting the potential number of sites that could be studied.

⁷ Levin (1984).

⁸ See, for example, the discussion of Walberg & Frederick (1983), in Karweit (1985).

⁹ It is important to keep in mind that most studies have used allocated time as the time variable. Because of the complexity of measuring how time is used at the classroom level, fewer studies have looked at engaged time, and only a small number of studies have attempted to measure academic learning time. However, findings from those studies tend to support this general conclusion. See Cotton, K. & Wikelund (1990).

¹⁰ Moore and Funkhouser (1990). With allocated time, one simply needs to determine the length of the school year and day. When looking at a more refined measure of time, such as engaged time or ALT, one must systematically observe classrooms and carefully estimate the amount of time spent on various activities, which varies by classroom, by teacher, and even by student.

¹¹ See, for example, Copple et al. (1996); Hossler et al. (1998).

¹² IBID.

¹³ This range was reported by Nancy Karweit, as reported in a 1987 report by the National Education Association.

¹⁴ This estimate was calculated by the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES), as reported in Karweit (1985).

¹⁵ For example, Kemmerer (1978), as cited in Hossler (1988), found significant variations in the use of instructional time in fifth grade classrooms in different districts; Karweit & Slavin (1981) found that students in 12 classrooms they studied in the same district had spent very different amounts of time "on-task", and that very different proportions of class time were spent on classroom management.

¹⁶ Karweit (1985).

¹⁷ See, for example, Hossler et al. (1988); Karweit (1985).

¹⁸ Quartarola (1984); Moore and Funkhouser (1990).

¹⁹ Funkhouser et al. (1995).

²⁰ Reported in Copple et al. These estimates were calculated by the National Association for Year-Round Education (1991), based on 1989-1990 data from the NEA.

²¹ Sacramento Bee (3/4/98), "Longer Year Put to Test: Oxnard Experiment Adds School Days". Refers to California state budget, which allocates $50 million per year through 2005 for one additional school day annually.

²² For example, NAYRE estimated the annual cost to be $33 billion per year, while the ECS estimated the cost (for adding only 20 days) to be more than $20 billion nationally. Moreover, these estimates are from 1991 and 1984, respectively, and thus do not reflect current costs.

²³ This estimate, developed by Picus (1993), is for increasing the school year to 200 days, and the school day to 7 hours for all K-12 students nationwide.

²⁴ See, for example, Ascher (1988); Ellis (1984); Levin (1984); Hossler et al. (1988).

²⁵ Stanford University, California Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Govenance, as described in Levin, 1984.

²⁶ See, for example, Quartarola (1984); Hossler et al. (1988); Moore & Funkhouser (1990); NECTL (1994).

²⁷ See, for example, references to Leinhardt (1977), and Wolf (1979), cited in Hossler et al. (1988). Leinhardt (1977) found that a modest positive relationship existed between the amount of instructional time and student achievement. Wolf (1979) concluded that time spent on task was moderately related to student achievement.

²⁸ Studies also show that, when engaged time in a particular subject area is increased, there is a fairly consistent increase in student achievement in that subject area.

²⁹ Quartarola (1984).

³⁰ Moore and Funkhouser (1990).

³¹ See, for example, Moore and Funkhouser (1990); Quartarola (1984); Hossler et al. (1988); Karweit (1985); Levin (1984).

³² Because of this, many studies or syntheses of studies conclude that, rather than increasing the length of the school day or year, districts and schools should focus on using existing time better, especially in terms of reducing the amount of instructional time lost to poor classroom management.

³³ Kane (1994). The research reports summarizes, for example, research findings by Karweit (1987); Walberg (1991); and Rosenshine (1990).

³⁴ Walberg (1991), as described in Kane (1994).

³⁵ Brandt (1982), as reported in Copple et al. (1992).

³⁶ Hossler et al. (1988).

³⁷ Walberg (1988), as described in Kane (1994).

³⁸ Quartarola (1984).

³⁹ See, for example, Nelson (1990); Copple et al. (1992).

⁴⁰ Copple et al. (1992).

⁴¹ See, for example, Levin (1984); Hossler et al. (1988).

⁴² Levin (1984).

⁴³ Harnischfeger (1985), as reported in Copple et al. (1992).

⁴⁴ Funkhouser et al. (1995).

⁴⁵ Copple, et al. (1992).

⁴⁶ See Copple et al. (1992), for references to studies by Allen and Van Sickle (1984); Okebukola (1985); Slavin (1985); and Sherman & Thomas (1986).

⁴⁷ Slavin (1986) in Copple, et. al. (1992).

⁴⁸ Beaton, et al. (1996).

⁴⁹ Mid-Atlantic Eisenhower Consortium for Mathematics and Science Education and Research for Better (RBS) Schools,Third International Mathematics and Science Study: A Sourcebook of4th-Grade Findings. p. 47.

⁵⁰ Schmidt et al. (1996)

⁵¹ Stevenson & Stigler, "The Learning Gap," as described in Funkhouser et al. (1995).

⁵² Funkhouser et al. (1995).

⁵³ Bradford (1990); Funkhouser at al. (1995).

⁵⁴ Cooper et al. (1996).

⁵⁵ Epstein (1990); Diffily (1991), as cited in Copple et al. (1992).

⁵⁶ IBID.

⁵⁷ In order to keep up with changing content standards, teachers will need substantial, ongoing coursework in their subject areas, at the same time they are teaching.

⁵⁸ See, for example, Denham & Lieberman (1980); Smyth (1985); both in Copple et al. (1992).

This paper was prepared for the PACE Media/ Education Writers Seminar (April 20, 1998).

Funding for this paper is partially provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education.

For more information, contact Joy Zimmerman at:

WestEd
730 Harrison St.
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 565-3004

jzimmer@WestEd.org