BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« New rules? | Main | Advice to parents as the new school year dawns »

Tuesday, August 30, 2011


Have you ever comparison shopped for coffee in the grocery and come across, for example, neighboring brands, one on sale for $8.25 a pound, according to the unit pricing label, and the other marked at 53 cents an ounce? And did you then slump at the prospect of doing the conversion — multiplying 53 by 16 in your head — and just grab one?

If so, you'll have a small idea of the mathematical challenges facing anyone who tries to sort out the claims and counterclaims in the debate heating up over the length of the school day in Chicago.

Classroom Example: Officials with the Chicago Public Schools, who are pushing for a longer day, have produced a fact sheet that says Chicago public elementary school students get 52,360 minutes per year in average instructional time, less than students in New York City (60,060 minutes per year).

Officials with the Chicago Teachers Union countered with their own fact sheet: Public elementary school students in Chicago get 921 instructional hours per year, more than students in New York City (910 hours).

The comparison is important. If Chicago is lagging badly behind other major urban centers, as Mayor Rahm Emanuel's education team is contending, then the Chicago Teachers Union will take a pounding in the looming public relations battle over Emanuel's determination to add 90 minutes to the school day.

See  Is more school better school? an updated Change of Subject webliography of source material on this topic originaly posted in April 2011

But if Chicago's hours are at least in line with those in other big school systems, sympathies may rebound to the teachers should they start making noises about going out on strike.

So let's try to sort this out.

First, we have to convert CTU figures from hours to minutes (multiply by 60) to see how they compare to CPS figures.

I'll spare you all the ciphering and simply tell you that the teachers union says elementary school students in Chicago get 2,900 minutes (48 more hours) more instructional time per year than the administration says they do.

And, using these same union numbers, Chicago elementary school students get 660 minutes (11 hours) more instructional time per year than New York City elementary school students.

But by the administration numbers, Chicago students get 7,700 minutes (128 hours) less instructional time per year than New York City elementary school students.

I ran these conflicting numbers by the communications departments at the New York City Department of Education and the New York chapter of the United Federation of Teachers.

You'd think this would be an easy bit of homework for them to correct and return in a timely fashion. But no. My deadline passed without a word.

I got an idea why when I started doing my own calculations using the New York City Instructional Time charts (.pdf). The time requirements are broken down into K-2nd, 3rd-5th, 6th, 7th and 8th and high school, with eight different instructional areas, some with monthly guidelines, others with semester guidelines, others with yearly guidelines and others with weekly guidelines, with hours and minutes mixed and matched.

I found myself sympathizing with Erika Patall, an educational psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, who co-authored "Extending the School Day or School Year: A Systematic Review of Research (1985-2009)," a paper published last year in the Review of Educational Research.

School time, she wrote,

can be narrowed to allocated class time, that is, the time that students are required to be in class. Allocated class time can be broken down into instructional time … and noninstructional time (that) includes time devoted to organizational or administrative activities, classroom management, and discipline. Instructional time can be narrowed to engaged time (and) academic learning time ...

You get the idea. Patall and her co-authors pored over 15 academic studies of the effect of extra schooling on educational performance, and came away offering a tepid, conditional endorsement of the benefits, which seem to accrue mostly to low-income or otherwise at-risk students.

"It's not obvious that a longer day is necessarily better," Patall cautioned me. "Though if that extra time is used effectively, depending on the circumstances, it certainly can be, though it's not necessarily a guarantee."

Anyway, for what it's worth, my analysis of New York's school year tracked with the administration's numbers, not the union's.

But what about that discrepancy in the Chicago numbers? The teachers union claims 55,260 minutes a year, the administration claims 52,360.

In a flurry of email and phone messages I tried to get the sides to reconcile these numbers — the difference amounts to 17 minutes a day — and concluded it has to do with whether you count "passing time" (time allocated for physically transitioning from one activity to another) as instructional time, which other school districts may also do.

But the number that's going to drive this conversation is likely to be 61,950, the state average minimum instructional time in minutes, according to the Illinois State Board of Education.

I'll do the conversions for you: The coffee on sale is the better deal. And the state average works out to around 40 minutes more a day, nearly half of what the mayor and his new CPS superintendent want.

Grounds for compromise.


 Chicago Public Schools Instructional Time Comparison  (Word document)

Chicago Teachers' Union Length of school day arguments  (Word document)

Chicago Public Schools Response to CTU claims on length of school day in comparable cities  (Word document)

Chicago Teacher's Union response to query about New York City discrepancy (Word document)

And, again, for an extended list of sources, see  Is more school better school? an updated Change of Subject webliography originaly posted in April 2011




Just so we're clear on this, "passing time" is the time between the end of a period and the beginning of the next period, right?

--Yup, that's passing time as I know it. In my district (in PA) it turns out that now kids don't need passing time. It's not listed on schedules at all. Voila! Increased instructional time through the magic of teleportation.

School days here have gotten only longer, not shorter, too. So our "instructional time" is up...but of course, it's not really been effective. Other fabulous innovation? In elementary school all kids have 90 minutes of "reading" -- which includes writing (plus now more for "grammar") and 90 minutes of math.

Would you be surprised to learn that spending 90 straight minutes on one subject isn't really what most 7 year olds are prepared to do?

--So, the administration stands by 52,360 minutes/year and the teachers union stands by 55,260 minutes/year.

What's missing from the discussions is the fact that the State of Illinois allows teacher "institute days" and report card pickup days to be included in the total 'instructional time' for students each year - though CPS students are NOT in school during institute days and report card pickup days.
So, let me get this straight. CPS students are NOT in school these days, but that time is allowed to be counted towards the minimum time students are required to be in class.

There is at least one CPS institute day each month of the upcoming 2011-2012 school year. A nine month school year = about 9-10 institute days. Average school day = 5.5 hours. Total time = 50-55 hours = 3000-3300 minutes.

Difference between administration and teachers unions numbers = about 3000 minutes.

It appears the administration is not counting things such as institute days - and rightly so because they are NOT instructional time and should not be counted towards the state required minimum time - and the teachers union IS counting institute days, because they allow union members to do whatever they do on those days.
Meanwhile, working parents of CPS students, such as myself, are left scrambling and looking for daycare or groups that offer day camps for students during those institute days (off).

Thank you for investigating into the actual "instructional time". The mayor and new superintendent would have you believe that we have the shortest school day in CPS. Our students do get out at 2:45 but this is because about 20 years ago the full lunch period of 45 minutes was taken out of the schedule and students began eating lunch during the time that was alocated for a 20 minute recess break.

So the CPS school day technically runs from 9:00 to 3:30 with 2:45 to 3:30 being considered as the lunch break. Currently, teachers supervise the students during the 20 minute former recess time because technically it is not lunch. If the 45 minute lunch period was moved back into the middle of the day, CPS would have to find resources to supervise kids for that long. Something they are probably unwilling to do.

And they could actually do this without union approval because it's not actually adding minutes, it's just rearranging the school day. I can't believe they would even consider actually adding 90 minutes to a school day that does not include a full lunch period nor a recess.

While everyone is quibbling with 40, 90 minutes of extra school time a day, does anyone really believe that is going to tip the scales for success for the student? Teachers have been scapegoated for what is general failure in the care and supervision of kids, and the standard of life in Chicago in general. Chicago neighborhoods are often dangerous places for children who live in fear of being beaten or robbed. Drugs and gangs are problems the mayor has yet to begin to get a handle on. While the mayor politicizes the issue by scapegoating teachers, let him see if he or his kids can walk the neighborhoods after dark to learn how safe his streets are. He hungrily eyes casinos as the panacea for all Chicago's economic problems without any thought of feeding off the poor who can least afford to gamble. This dependency on casino revenues promise to make life more at risk for Chicagoans and their children by creating addictive gamblers.

The conversation should begin not with teachers who cannot and should not be held solely responsible for a child's inability to meet standards of learning, but should begin with examining what the child's life is like. Is there money and a working guardian at home? Are there safe streets and neighborhoods? What is the role of the parent/guardian and is that helping the child succeed in school? The mayor should stick to what he should be doing: creating a safe city for the children, not pointing fingers, conveniently diverting the attention to where he himself is not succeeding. If the mayor is concerned as he says he is, let him work on assuring there are jobs that create stable homes and prospering children.

Adding 40-90 minutes a day alone, I do not believe, will create the difference between success and failure. I feel that pursuing this red herring as the solution is a waste of time. The issue of children not doing well enough is an indication of a larger, systemic failure including life in the inner city, the issue of the quality of home environments and the reality of safety on the streets of Chicago.

We are not allowed to list "passing time" on our time distribution -so, if math ends at 10:15, reading starts at 10:15.
Thus ignores the few minutes at the end of class wrapping up the lesson, lining them up, going to another class, frequently lecturing them in hall behavior, picking up your new group, walking them back, getting them settled.
In addition, the number of days that are child few are ridiculous but it is a giant waste-we analyze data or have "self directed time" which means nobody bothered to plan an agenda.
Last but not least, testing kills an equivalent of two weeks.

Ok , not last-recess-kids can't play outside in many neighborhoods, the least we could do is reinstate recess, burn energy and learn social skills!

I have a feeling that Emanuel wants the extra time in school, not for its instructional value, but that it will keep the kids off the streets for that time, which means they can't be either the victims of street crime or its perpetrators.

Side issue: What's so tough about multiplying 53 by 16 in your head? Break it down; here's one way, there are others:

53 x 16 = 53 x 10 + 53 x 6

It's easy to multiply by 10; just add a zero. It's also easier to double something than to multiply by 3, so:

53 x 16 = 530 + 3 x (2 x 53) = 530 + 3 x 106

3 x 106 = 3 x 100 + 3 x 6 = 300 + 18 = 318


53 x 16 = 530 + 318 = 848.

This is what we old guys learned to do before there were calculators!

Students start fading out after 20 minutes in any class. They simply do not retain much information after 20 minutes. Engaging short classes (often using digital tools) that build on important concepts is a proven system of improving academic achievement. Experiential learning is also very helpful.

If more school won't make the kids any smarter - then we can presume less school won't make them any dumber, right? Instead of adding 90 minutes to the school day, we should take 90 minutes away, pay the teachers less, and balance the budget.


Post of the day!

Nice one David L. I agree with Brian that it is the post of the day.

Even if Emmanuel's motivations are to keep the kids off the streets for longer amounts of time so they are not victims or perpetrators, what possible difference does that make? That is in and of itself an excellent reason to keep them in school. If the extra 90 minutes can actually give them more knowledge in the process, then that's a bonus.

And if everyone is working, there are no parents at home to watch them anyway, Jim Abe.

They are missing the appropriate standard of comparison. Why compare to other big city public schools? My options are Chicago public, private or parochial. I did the math of my son's, albeit high priced, private school compared to the "best classical school" claimed on the north side. They have recess and we do too so better comparison. We have 10 more school days a year based on their calendar, an hour (plus) longer day. Over the 12 years of school I calculated 2.7 YEARS difference of time. And our school isn't in the headlines every day. I'm paying and grateful I can. Also I suspect my son will avoid today's Tribune front page headline issue. CPS - raise your standard to compete with the best schools in the nation, not just "other urban public schools" and I'll consider you.

Brian, David L. and Moperina all need to take a logic class. If adding more time to the school day does not increase learning, then it still does not follow that taking time away from the school day with not decrease learning. Could it be that a 6 hour school day is the ideal amount of instructional time?

For an unrelated but relevant example, let's say widgets sell for $10.00. Increasing the price of widgets may not necessarily increase profits for the widget sellers because people will simply buy fewer widgets. However, decreasing the price of widgets probably will decrease profits for widget sellers because they are now making less profit per widget (or they may now be making no profit per widget). If profits increase by raising or lowering the cost of widgets, it means that $10.00 was not the ideal cost for widgets.

Now, it may be that 6 hours is not the ideal amount of instructional time and maybe the day does need to be adjusted one way or the other. But the way you are stating your case is an obvious logical fallacy which I'm sure you understand when an economic example is used.

My daughter is a teacher and her work day doesn't end when classes are dismissed for the day. After she puts her own children to bed, she goes back "to work" to grade papers, write lesson plans, call parents, etc. I'm sure parents are in favor of a longer school day because they will know where their children are. Unfortunately, there are some parents who use the Chicago Public Schools as babysitters. These are the same parents who do not sit down with their children and help them with their homework.

Juanita - all teachers (and most professions) have to do work or travel out of the "normal business hours" so it shouldn't be part of the argument for a longer school day. I go back to work after my kid is in bed too. If kids are getting instruction or constructive use of time and teachers are paid appropriately for high quality work, then it is a win win. If a second argument needs to be made for what teachers should be paid relative to other professions, I'm all for it. But let's not tie the time kids need for adequate instruction to that discussion. Any job worth doing well takes a lot of time and commitment.

Dienne - I was joking when I suggested taking away 90 minutes - perhaps you are correct that 5 hours and 15 minutes Chicago kids are in school is the ideal time - but given the results, perhaps not.

I will freely admit I don't have the answers to how to improve the schools in Chicago. I have to side with Emanual from the standpoint that he is at least trying to implement change for the better, whereas the Teachers Union want to keep things the same which has proven to result in failure.

If the Teachers Union has a better idea to balance the budget and improve the educational system, I'd love to hear it.

Marie, my daughter is committed but unfortunately she works in a school where the parents are not committed and only 2 or 3 parents show up to pick up report cards. Many of the girls in her classes are pregnant, most of the children come to school for the free breakfast and lunch (because those are the only meals they will have), many of the children are gang members. The school is in a dangerous area. Is she committed? Darn right she is! For the last 18 years in the Chicago Public Schools.

Does any of this account for the fact that teachers get summers off?

Uh, I don't think total time spent in class has ANYTHING to do with the summers off. I know where you're going with that: 'waa, waa, waa. I have to work the summers, so should they."
Some barbershops are closed on Mondays. I should get a better haircut. Teachers would gladly work through those two summer months, for an increase of about 16% of their pay. When you start judging what people make and how much they work, naturally, we'll have to look at you in detail as well.

Sorry, one thing I forgot to add to the conversation: worried about how your child is doing in school? You should. intelligence is inherited.

--Teachers don't get summers off. That's when they go back to school themselves.

Or they teach summer school. My sister, who is an Asst Principal & also a teacher (Special Ed) at her school, got 3 weeks off in the summer (by the way, that "3 months off" isn't correct, anyway, as school goes until after the 1st week of June & schools that are on a "normal" schedule are back mid-August). Her school is now a "track E" school, going year-round. She is off a couple of weeks after each "quarter". And if teachers are spending all day teaching - and, frankly, I can't imagine teaching 50 minutes per hour for 5 hours, no real breaks - when do they do lesson plans? Or grade papers? Or meet with parents? Of course they work more than 5 hours a day! Oh - and studies show that office workers actually work an average of 6 hours per day out of the 8 they are paid for - and I bet you get to go to the bathroom when you need to or get up & walk somewhere. And I know my spreadsheets don't talk back (much)!

Why do teachers insist they are being scapegoated? Bad teachers exist but that isn't the point. It would be great to have more time to work on the math curriculum rather than have the teacher race through the material so they can say they covered everything. More time would give teachers more time to do what they say they want to do, which is to teach the stuff they are supposed to cover and make sure it is understood by the kids.
Excellent article Eric: you are a star for laying this out. We parents applaud you.

They get summers off, get paid extra if they work summer school or coach, and work short days.

Yes, they take work home like millions of other Americans.

Starting salary for CPS is $50K, hardly peanuts, even in Chicago. Not to mention they are public employees, so the taxpayers are involuntarily paying their salaries.

And on top of all that, they produce terrible results, and have great job security.

Not gonna say I have a lot of love for them whining about their pay.

A few numbers and non-numbers to consider about the current state of the alleged Chicago Public School system: Listen to the news at night when the press is interviewing local people on the street- apparently English, diction and grammar are no longer required courses. Number: 17.4 - the average ACT score (average- that means some lower and some higher). That number is less than 50% of a perfect score, and about 5 points lower than most suburban districts. And I think you get at least 5 points for spelling your name correctly!

In the great state of Wisconsin, teachers unions can no longer bargain over work rules. With the result that the public schools will be run by the People's elected representatives, and not by the unions.

This may not fix all that's wrong with public schools, but it's a great start!

Albigensian, interesting handle. What do you think of St. Dominic?

---Brad, I'm sure that you realize that our summers are not paid vacation. That is deferred pay, meaning that the Board of Education keeps some of the money we earn (and collects interest on it), and portions it our throughout the school year so that we get paid every week. Before I was a teacher, I worked 40 hours a week an never took any work home. If I did have to work longer, I was given compensation time, which I used to take days off.

It's not the length of the day, it's how the time is structured. A longer day with a 46 minute lunch period and study hall for students strips 90 minutes away from instructional time, leaving six periods (46 min) or less than five hours of instruction in a seven hour day. (high school)

What we are doing is eliminating most of the study halls, some electives, and offering double block math, Lit, and reading programs for those in need of interventions in these areas. Whether the 90 minute period is more successful, we have just started this practice a year or two ago, we'll have to wait and see if the assessment numbers rise. I'm not sure that intense instruction over a ninety minute period will work, the students seem to be tuning out by the second half of the period.

what professions must work after hours?
Doctors, lawyers, accountants!
Come on.
We've taken this too far. Teachers are entitled to a just wage. They are professionals.
Treat them as such and they will respond accordingly.


DaveB: I multiplied by 16 that way for most of my life, but recently I had a brainstorm and found an even easier way. Just multiply by 2 four times.

Nate, that works too, and I like it. Let's see: 53, 106, 212, 424, 848. Should be simple enough for even a member of the calculator generation to handle. There are lots of ways to handle that calculation mentally; it's whatever floats your boat.

SM, teachers may be professionals, but they act like hourly workers; e.g., when Karen Lewis starts calculating an hourly wage from the proposed increases in class time and teacher salary.

SM, here are a few for you: engineers, sales people, advertising executives, graduate assistants, department managers, staff accountants, staff lawyers, television producers, computer programmers, graphic designers, corporate trainers, fundraisers, public relations officers, actuaries, underwriters, university professors, real estate developers, editors, office managers, reporters, portfolio managers, financial analysts, commercial lenders, farmers, product managers, small business owners, politicians, elected officials, principals, network administrators, astronauts, military officers, chemists, nuclear physicists, fashion designers, biomedical engineers, epidemiologists, museum curators, clergy, market researchers, industrial engineers, symphony conductors, and purchasing managers. Just to name a few!

Exactly SM's point, ALL. Look at the professions you name. $50K (starting salary with a Master's degree) is not low for Chicago's general workforce but it IS low for an advertising executive or an engineer or a nuclear physicist or a museum curator or the vast majority of the other professions named here.

Besides, teachers have never said we outright oppose a longer school day. We just want to be paid for it.

It's so interesting that this big push for a longer school day didn't happen back when the economy was flush and the mayor might have considered raising taxes on those who were doing well to pay for raises. Now that we're in an economic crisis (for working people, not for highly profitable corporations) it is SUDDENLY URGENT that the school day get longer.

As Rahm says, "never let a good crisis go to waste."

So how many of those professionals would readily agree to have their time at work increased by 29% for a 2% raise, to go along with what they do after work-hours? I'm all for compromise but that is completely unfair.

--I should have added that after work hours would also also increase due to increased planning, grading, and parent-communication...

Well, Jim, we have a 10% unemployment rate right now, so I'll bet that if the boss says "take it or leave it", people would take it.

Also, isn't the longer day coming about in part by moving lunch from the end of the day to the middle of the day? So then, how do you get a 29% increase? How much extra planning, grading, and parent communication go with longer lunch and recess? If you spend more time on material, would you necessarily have more grading? Is it possible that students would catch on faster, so there would be less parent communication?

If you did not like the deal that CPS offered, maybe you could teach in the suburbs. You know, where the days are shorter, the school year is shorter, and the standards are lower than in Chicago. Right?

Jim, welcome to corporate america where downsizing over decades loaded up folks (the amount of total work didn't change) with maybe a COLA adjustment. It's the real world that we all work more now than we did. Do we like it? Not particularly. But I did learn a lot more than I would have and got a lot more efficient about prioritizing. Maybe more effort should be spent on technology to help the teachers be more efficient and get rid of useless reporting instead of all the effort fighting about pay and hours.

7-year-olds can't spend more per than 20 minutes per subject? If I understand their schedules right, they seem to spend at least an hour per subject in France, Hungary and Japan. Have we looked at how children in other countries are taught?

29% increase in extra instructional time is being asked for ALL. How much planning would you need for each 45 minute presentation, assess comprehension and report your results? This is what many people pay way more for, to private institutions/organizations. Students will just catch on faster with increased time, with less parent communication, really?! We can't treat children like spreadsheets, profits, losses, etc... Its silly to insinuate that teachers just need a course on organization. I and many teachers, researchers, agree that there are many needless reports and assessments. The time teachers put in, like the technology you recommend, come at a price...

I'm a parent of kids at a very well regarding CPS elementary school.

It is SHOCKING how much time, whether it be minutes or hours are, that are marked up as "instructional" are anything but. It is mind boggling how much time currently available for instruction is wasted. Got a holiday/vacation coming up? Forget at least the day before if not two -- no instruction takes place. The last week of school? What a joke! NO learning takes place. It's all about cleaning out desks. And MOVIES? My kids have seen more movies IN CLASS than with family in the theater. And no, nothing at all relevant to anything they are learning -- just filler. My daughter told me that "Kung Fu Panda" was one of the several movies shown during her Chinese class. I asked her if it was in Chinese and she said, "No, but, you know, it's Kung Fu and that's kinda Chinese."

So, yes, CTU, it IS the quality of the time spent that is important, not just the quantity. So WHY do you waste it so?

Before my kids were in CPS I was extremely pro-union. Now I want to tell them to grow up. Folks, there are some really good teachers out there and there are some REALLY BAD teachers out there. CTU would have alot more credibility and would be providing a much better service to its membership it it acknowledge that.

--So, Jim, you're saying that Chicago children don't deserve an education like children in private schools get? Excellent! Also, I had no idea that children caught on faster with LESS time spent in instruction. Maybe the school day should be cut down to four hours. Then we'll really see CPS students shine when they arrive in college!

If you're so unhappy in CPS, maybe you could get a job in a private school. You would make more money, especially once you throw in pensions and benefits! Private school teachers work fewer hours, fewer days, and have lower standards to meet. Right?

All this time wasted on minutes per day. There are two numbers (probably more) that are easily documentable and should be front and center in any conversation about education: graduation and dropout rates. In Chicago these numbers are terrible.
I'm not an educator so I won't begin to suggest solutions. My sense is that there are easily as many problems out of the teacher's control as in that have a direct relationship to learning.
Teachers shouldn't be scape goats but neither should they be given a pass if they are lousy teachers and shame on the unions for preventing bad teachers from being culled from the schools as quickly as reasonably possible.
The amount of money being "invested" in education by the feds, states, counties, cities has grown enormously but "Johnnie still can't read" just doesn't seem to go away.
I will say though that the current quibbling over the length of the school day seems to fly in the face of an argument I have always heard from teachers - "we do it for the kids". Seems like this argument is all about them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group