Engagement lacking in calendar change
The Oklahoma City school board voted recently to move away from the continuous learning calendar toward a more traditional one. I spoke against the change. As I prepared my remarks, I searched for information the district has provided regarding the necessity of this systemwide change. There was very little, and none of it was backed by real data.
As an educator in this district, I am disheartened at the seeming lack of empirical evidence used to justify this decision — especially since teachers are expected to use data in their instructional decisions. I am far more concerned, however, that legitimate reasoning behind the change has not been distributed to district stakeholders. This makes it a step in the wrong direction.
One thing this calendar changes is the summer break. Students see a loss in mathematics and reading achievement with prolonged absence from school. Research suggests that this “summer slide” is a real problem, which disproportionately affects low-income and struggling students, like those in the district’s many Title I schools. A general consensus in research points us toward a calendar with shorter breaks, not longer. It also points toward improving student engagement and developing school intercession.
Every year, I make sure my students understand that they can talk to me about their education. I want them to be involved in the process. The ability for students to feel heard is crucial in developing a population willing and excited to engage in the democratic process. We require our students to take a government class, and weave civics into all our social studies curriculum to prepare them to be active participants in their communities. Some of our laws even make a point to identify that, “It is the public policy of the state of Oklahoma to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry’s understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems.”
There seems to be a disconnect. We want our students to be involved, but the school board, which dictates what is best for students, hasn’t given them, or anyone else, the ability to be an informed citizenry. How can I teach my students that they should be engaged if those in power aren’t open about the processes and problems they face? What we teach students doesn’t match the culture of power.
I understand the bottom line in education; it’s about the money. The board’s decision feels more about money than students. The district is expected to save $500,000 per year with this new calendar. That money can make a big difference in the outcomes of our students, positive and negative.
I’ll support, and advocate for, a calendar if it is in the best interest of our students. The district should have an overwhelming burden to release real, quantifiable data on the effects its newly adopted calendar is expected to have on students’ academic outcomes. As it stands, the board hasn’t done enough to engage those it represents, nor has it worked in the best interest of its students. It has simply sought to save money. Park teaches world history and street law at Southeast High School.