That is the question. One of many swirling around in our nation’s cauldron of ideas on how to improve our public education system and close the achievement gap. The U.S. News & World Report just posted two opinion pieces on this hot-button issue. One argues in favor of more time in the classroom, and the other argues against it. Sort of.  I’ll quickly summarize the main points in each, and then give you my take.

In the first piece, Christopher Gabrieli jumps on the let’s-expand-school-hours bandwagon (along with, among others, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and President Obama). His argument: “Students need enough time to learn to read and write well and to handle math comfortably. But they also need time to master science and technology, to grasp history and world affairs, and perhaps to learn a foreign language. Students need time to gain an appreciation of arts, music, and drama and to participate in sports. They need time for project-based learning and self-directed exploration.” Gabrieli cites specific examples of schools that have achieved great success with students while operating on an extended schedule (like KIPP charter schools), and mentions that there are 1000 more schools across the country where students are reaping the benefits of this reform.

In the second piece, Frederick M. Hess argues that more school just means more money, and since we’re already not getting enough bang for our buck when it comes to education (considering how much time is wasted in schools on things other than instruction, not to mention the marked increase in school spending over the past four decades that hasn’t gotten us very far), we should first “squeeze the fat” out of the school day before adding hours to it. He claims that “a 2003 Review of Educational Research analysis tallied dozens of studies and found no systematic evidence that additional time raised student achievement,” and cautions that “simply locking students in mediocre schools for additional hours presumes that the proper response to chaos or tedium is more of the same.”

Here’s something I noticed: if you pay careful attention to the nuances in each author’s argument, you realize they aren’t as far apart in their opinions as they initially appear to be. Gabrieli concedes that “this is not a one-size-fits-all innovation. Each school develops its design based on a careful assessment of student needs,” suggesting that extending the school day is not necessarily appropriate for all schools and in all circumstances. And Hess admits that “a longer day could make sense for many students and offer a respite for stretched families. Where schools know how to use the hours, where talented teachers have the ideas and energy, and where families think the student would benefit, OK.” So both are essentially saying that extending the school day, when it’s done right, can make a lot a sense.

I guess that’s the key here – the “when it’s done right” part. As Hess suggests, if you take a failing school where kids aren’t learning, and just add hours and days to the schedule, you’ll end up with a lot more of the same. So extending the school schedule will only work as a reform strategy when it’s combined with other key ingredients: talented teachers, passionate principals, sufficient resources, a strong school culture, and parent and student buy-in. Not to mention plenty of time to think through and plan out how best to use the extra hours to maximize learning opportunities for students. My conclusion: Adding more time to the school calendar is not a silver bullet reform strategy on its own, but it could be one important piece of a complex puzzle as long as other pieces are also in place.

(Photo: Robbie-73’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons)