Testimony

 

Flexible School Week Schedule

 

Prepared For

 

NYS Senate Standing Committee on Education

 

Provided By:

 

Samuel Shevat, Chair – Legislative Committee

 

Rural Schools Association of New York State

 

December 10, 2008

 

 

Over the last thirty years, much of Upstate New York has suffered from job loss, outmigration, and declining wealth. The impact on small and rural school districts has been significant:

1. Over the last four years, the number of high need rural school districts has increased from 144 to 158.
2. The number of children attending these high need schools has declined at an annual rate of 1.5% per year since the year 2000.
3. The local capacity to support education has decreased as property values decline, and personal income growth remains stagnant.
4. The reliance on state aid for support of public education grows with many of these districts having operating aid ratios in excess of 70%.

Our current economic crisis has only exacerbated an already difficult position for most Upstate Rural School Districts. Thus, it is important that we explore all options that have the potential to lead to improved economies of scale, efficiency of operation and the ultimate reduction in the cost of delivering educational programs and services.  The efforts to reduce costs must be balanced against the maintenance of program and/or service quality; particularly when it directly impacts the education of children.

It is within this context that the Rural Schools Association of New York State would like to acknowledge Senator Saland and the Senate Education Committee for their willingness to investigate the feasibility of introducing the Flexible School Week Schedule to our currently mandated 180 day, 5 day week schedule. We would also like to thank the committee for the opportunity to offer our observations on this proposal.

The Rural Schools Association (RSA) represents the interest of the more than 330 small and rural school districts of New York State. RSA is a member organization with a current membership of 277 school districts, and we are located on the campus of Cornell University. We are familiar with the issues of small school size as some of our districts have populations of less than one-hundred students. We are familiar with the difficulties of transporting students in districts of large geographic size; 250 square miles or more with a sparsity factor of 4 or 5 students per mile. Therefore, we feel quite confident in representing the interests and concerns of our member districts in addressing the basic question:

Can we achieve equal or better levels of student achievement

through an extended daily schedule with students in attendance

for fewer days a week?

We also recognize the social dimensions of the issue and the potential impact it can have on children and families. We will also address this issue as a part of our testimony.

In sharing our views, we will respond directly to questions raised by the committee. Before doing so, however, it is important to recognize that there is limited data available on the effectiveness of alternatives to the traditional   5 day weekly schedule. The National School Boards Association has found that only about 100 school districts in sixteen states operate on a four day school week schedule, and there is no record on the 9 day, two week cycle being discussed by the Hadley Luzerne School District. Where the four day week has been tried is mostly in small rural school districts with a small student population spread over a large geographic area. This greater propensity in rural areas can be attributed to the fact that rural schools tend to have scarce resources to begin with, and transportation costs tend to be disproportionately high. Let us now turn our attention to the questions raised by the committee.

1.      How would the quality of education be maintained?                                           

This is probably the most important question that the committee has raised. We are living in a highly competitive global society, and our ability to maintain our position as a world leader is directly linked to the educational levels of our population. We need to educate more children to higher levels of educational achievement. Can this be accomplished by meeting the statutory requirements for instructional time with a shortened school week? Recent research on the impact of a shortened school week on student performance is rather scant. Most of the research dates back to the early 1980’s well before the publication of A Nation At Risk; a document that prompted a comprehensive review of our educational system in comparison with those of other countries. What we learned is that children from other highly developed countries attend school for longer periods of time, both in length of day and in the number of days of attendance.  We would encourage committee members to view the documentary “Two Million Minutes” which compares the high school education of children in the United States, India, and China. It suggests that we continue to fall behind globally, and that if we continue along the same path we will lose our position as a world leader. In short, we must be careful at looking for solutions that may produce savings, and, at the same time jeopardize the quality of our educational program. The truth of the matter is we really don’t know the impact of a shortened school week with longer school days on educational quality. At the very least we should take a look at the performance levels of the 100 school districts that have chosen to move in this direction. RSA remains skeptical on the positive impact of such a move when countries around the world are moving in the opposite direction. 

2.      What operational changes would need to be made?

An analysis of operational changes would begin with a review of all bargaining unit agreements. Many contracts specify length of work day and length of work year. The goal of the school district would be to maintain or increase the number of contact minutes with children, and to be able to use any additional days for staff development purposes. This would necessitate reaching agreement with the bargaining units representing teachers. Contract changes would also need to be made with bargaining units representing other district employees; e.g., bus drivers, food service personnel, maintenance and custodial staff, secretarial staff, etc. Other questions that would need to be addressed include:

a.      Use of the school building on the day(s) that students are not in session.

b.      Adjustments in interscholastic athletic schedules.

c.       Adjustments in co-curricular schedules.

d.     Adjustments in mandated remedial services and in mandated I.E.P. services for children with disabilities.

3.      What would be the potential advantages and disadvantages?

a.      Advantages –

1)      Energy Savings as a result of reduced use of the bus fleet and need to heat or cool the buildings.

2)      Potential of using additional day(s) for staff training. It must be recognized, however, that it would come at an additional cost.

3)      Custodial savings related to less building utilization.

4)      Lengthened school period could provide more concentrated contact time with students.

5)      Anticipated improvement in both student and staff attendance.

b.      Disadvantages –

1)      The longer school day and impact on elementary school aged children.

2)      The longer day and impact on athletic schedules; particularly Fall and Spring.

3)      Student Absenteeism and the loss of instruction; e.g., with a four day week, two days of absence represents 50% of school week.

4)      A high percentage of children in Rural Schools are eligible for the Free and/or Reduced Breakfast and Lunch Programs. These may be the only nutritious meals for these children.

5)      The use of school as a Community Center may be compromised.

6)      The impact on students participating in Distance Learning programs and college/university programs where schedules may not coordinate.

7)      The impact on students who have after school jobs.

8)      The potential gaps in instruction resulting from snow days, and vacation periods.

4.      What cost savings could reasonably be anticipated?

The sources of potential cost savings include:

a.      The reduction in bus travel may result in a 10% to 20% savings in transportation costs.

b.      The ability to add 1 day per week to cycle in which building temperatures are lower and buildings are not used will reduce heating and electrical costs.

c.       The reduced need for Food Service by 1 day per week may reduce overall cost of the program.

Overall it appears that the savings would be in the support areas. They may be somewhat significant in sparsely populated rural districts that cover a larger geographic area.

5.      What challenges may parents face, and what, if any, solutions might address these challenges?

This proposal would have significant impact on the social fabric of rural communities. There is a high incidence of low income and/or poverty in rural New York. In a 2004 study of the Upstate New York Economy prepared by the Brookings Institution, personal income lagged the country by 11%. This is reflected in the growing number of young people attending rural schools who are eligible for the free and/or reduced lunch program. It can be as much as 60% of the student body in some rural school districts. In many cases both parents are working and they look to the school not only as a provider of educational services but also as a provider of childcare. Thus parents would need to find child care for the day(s) that their children are not in school; an added cost that they cannot afford. These very same parents would also be asked to provide school related support for the added time that their children are not in school. While the number of minutes of direct instruction may be the same with a shortened weekly schedule, there would still be a 3 day gap with the extended weekend. Such gaps would necessitate reinforcement that would have to be provided by parents. It is fair to say, that the area of greatest concern for rural educators next to the shortened school schedule, would be the added custodial and educational burden placed on parents. The options for parents are few, and may come with a cost unless they can rely on immediate family for assistance and support. Unlike urban schools, rural schools do not have easy access to community based organizations to support families and children. One of my colleagues had these insightful comments regarding the challenges faces by parents and children living in rural areas:

Whenever more burden is placed on the home for school-related work to be done, the students from more resourced environments fare better than those from less resourced environments. Such a change is likely to place a disproportionate burden on poorer children.

In closing the Rural Schools Association would offer these summary comments.

1.      Most of the research on Flexible School Scheduling is dated. We need to know the impact on a system that is preparing children for the highly competitive 21^st century global environment. In short, there may be a need for more instructional time to meet higher achievement standards.

2.      There are only 100 schools in 16 states that have moved to a Flexible School Week Schedule. We need to know more about these schools and the impact that the change has made on student performance.

3.      Resources are scarce in rural areas and many families are at or below the poverty level. They rely heavily on the school for educational and social services. A shortened weekly schedule compromises the ability of the school to provide much needed services for both children and their families.

 Again, we would like to thank Senator Saland and committee members for allowing us to share our observations on this important issue. We urge you to study this concept carefully. As an association, we remain skeptical that a Flexible Weekly Schedule will meet the educational and social needs of the families and children that are served by Rural Schools.

 

  

Statement by the New York State Rural Schools Association

Regarding Governor Paterson’s Proposed Budget Cuts

 

There is no doubt that New York State is in the midst of a very serious economic crisis. The New York State Rural Schools Association recognizes the problem that confronts our Governor and our other elected officials. We applaud the Governor for being proactive and presenting a proposal that will begin a conversation on steps that must be taken to reduce costs.

At the same time, however we MUST express opposition to a proposal that would result in mid-year cuts to education. A reduction of any magnitude can have a very disruptive impact on the schools and the children they serve as more than 70% of a school budget is devoted to personnel costs:

1.     It will mean a disruption in the instructional program if teaching positions are eliminated.

2.     It will mean reductions and/or elimination of field trips, extra-curricular activities, and programs in art, music and athletics.

3.     It will mean the elimination of all school supported remediation and enrichment programs conducted at the end of the school day.

Mid-year cuts would be most devastating for our Rural Schools and Rural Communities. Rural schools already run “bare-bones” programs with few enhancements, and have limited resources available to absorb a reduction in state aid. Even with a 3% cut, “high-need” rural school districts would be hard pressed to absorb such a reduction without impacting core instructional programs. All afterschool programs would be in jeopardy, and partnerships with community based organizations would cease.

Rural Schools have already taken steps to reduce all unnecessary expenses. Restrictions have been placed on travel, freezes have been placed on purchases, and open positions have been left unfilled. Our schools recognize that our state and our local communities are facing economic peril and are doing their part to minimize costs for local tax payers.

The Rural Schools Association joins the appeal of other educational organizations across the state in requesting no mid-year cuts for schools. We are ready to work with our elected officials to cut costs at the local district level, and to maintain a “sound basic education” for all of New York’s children.