Quantity Matters: Annual Instructional Time in an Urban School System

Abstract

This article shares a series of instructional time analyses to illustrate how school management, social and cultural welfare programs, high-stakes testing, system policies, and a flawed notion of organizational efficiency combine to cripple enormous blocks of annual instructional time in a large urban district. Data analyzed were classroom observation records, field notes, teacher interviews, school calendars, and system documents. School trends that fragment and erode instructional time and reformers' reluctance to rethink instructional time are discussed. In closing, administrators are urged to view the allocation and management of time as one of their most important and powerful functions, and actions to recover instructional time for teachers and students are outlined. Forthepasttwodecades,researchandinterventioninurbanschoolshavecentered on how to institute more ambitious learning standards and how to improve the quality of curricula, pedagogy, and assessment. Concentrated attention to program quality essentially sidelined quantitative matters such as instructional time allocations or students' time on task. Policy makers and administrators were warned away from thinking that "more of the same" could help schools reach new goals (Fenstermacher). The reasoning seemed sensible: Adding to teachers' and students' schedules made little sense until fundamental improvements in instruction and student engagement were achieved.The study reported here questions the notion that the quantity of instructional time is a secondary problem. It documents how much instructional time urban schools actually deliver to students and suggests that weak and 652

Absenteeism and Beyond: Instructional Time Loss and Consequences

“…Finally, time on task in class should constitute evidence of effective supervision by principals, inspectors, or supervisors. Measurements in Tunisia through this study (78%) and the Chicago public schools (85%; Smith 2000) suggest that 80% use of time could be realistically attained. This 80% figure could be used as a benchmark for lower-income countries to attain.…”

Instructional Time and National Achievement: Cross-National Evidence

“…In some past studies, however, time devoted to instruction and learning, especially subject-specific instruction, seems to be positively related to student achievement in general and to the corresponding subject area in particular (Tedesco et al, 1979;Holsinger, 1982;Stevenson, 1983;OERI, 1986;Larsen, 1989;Smith, 2000). Even though instructional time is interwoven with the quality, timing and content of instruction, it is nevertheless a central component of school resources (Fisher & Berliner, 1985;Griffith et al, 1994;Lee, Smith & Croninger, 1997;Yair, 2000b).…”

“…Researchers have come to see that assessments of the opportunity to learn can be a rich source of information about school resources. The distinction between instructional time and instructional content is a perennial favourite among scholars and policymakers engaged in cross-national comparison (Smith, 2000). While these two things are hard to separate conceptually, the amount of time devoted to instruction is often examined as a separate and central resource in the schooling process.…”

Actual Instructional Time in African Primary Schools: Factors that Reduce School Quality in Developing Countries

“…Many studies focused on issues of classroom dynamics and teaching efficiency; others were preoccupied with establishing statistical associations between time variables and pupil achievement (Smyth, 1985). Recent work compares time constructs in different instructional settings, and assesses the loss of learning time due to disrupting factors such as inadequate educational policies and poorly organized or delivered class lessons (Wang, 1998;Smith, 2000).…”