Rumble Strips|You have been warned!

Obama says we are at a disadvantage to other nations around the world because our kids don’t spend enough time at school.

Obama says American kids spend too little time in school, putting them at a disadvantage with other students around the globe.

“Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas,” the president said earlier this year. “Not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, and probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom.”

Right off the bat Obama’s attitude is so typically nanny-state liberal. I know you don’t want it, but it’s for your own good so we are going to shove it down your throat. Right there you know it’s an agenda-driven initiative not for the common welfare, but for the benefit of the left-wing cause.

But is our international lagging really the premise behind this policy? Let’s parse this lengthy article and see if we can figure out what’s really going on?

Let’s start with the Obama admin’s apparent premise:

Obama and Duncan say kids in the United States need more school because kids in other nations have more school.

“Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here,” Duncan told the AP. “I want to just level the playing field.”

When a liberal says they want to ‘level the playing field,’ hold on to your ass as it is about to get leveled. But is it really even the truth that the smarter kids from the pacific rim do better because they go to school longer? Well, according to the article no, it’s not.

While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it’s not true they all spend more time in school.

Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).

Wow, we already spend 10-15% more time in school than the smart kids. There goes Obama’s premise right out the window.

But never mind those pesky facts. According to the author of this article, Libby Quaid, AP Education Writer, there is a strong case to be made for longer school years. Lets take a look at her case. First example:

Researcher Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution looked at math scores in countries that added math instruction time. Scores rose significantly, especially in countries that added minutes to the day, rather than days to the year.

Let me get this straight: If you add more instruction time, scores improve? You know that is just simply shocking. Who would have thought it? But hold on. It’s already been stipulated that the leading countries spend over a hundred hours less in school every year and yet they spend more time on math? Now I know I’m just a simple yokel, but common sense seems to say we are wasting several hundred hours a year on something that isn’t making our kids as smart as those we envy. It’s demonstrably not the instruction time, so it must be the instruction material. You education bureaucrats really need to get a clue.

Example #2 of the strong case for longer school years:

In the U.S., there are many examples of gains when time is added to the school day.

Charter schools are known for having longer school days or weeks or years. For example, kids in the KIPP network of 82 charter schools across the country go to school from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., more than three hours longer than the typical day. They go to school every other Saturday and for three weeks in the summer. KIPP eighth-grade classes exceed their school district averages on state tests.

In Massachusetts’ expanded learning time initiative, early results indicate that kids in some schools do better on state tests than do kids at regular public schools. The extra time, which schools can add as hours or days, is for three things: core academics — kids struggling in English, for example, get an extra English class; more time for teachers; and enrichment time for kids.

First of all if there are so many examples of gains resulting from longer school days, why was two very weak cases given as samples? Are there no better success stories?

So, KIPP goes 3 hrs a day longer, every other weekend, and 3 weeks in summer and they can report that 8th grade exceeds the school district average test scores. By how much? And what about the 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades? And do other charter schools that don’t go for longer times also outscore the public schools? Probably in more than just the 8th grade. And how do you know the difference in scores isn’t related to some other factor, like environment?

In the Massachusetts example, the author states some kids in some schools do better on state tests than kids in the non-expanded learning initiative. That’s powerful stuff and really helps make a strong case. Not really. The statement is double talk and statistically means nothing. For example, some kids at the non expanded schools did better than all the kids at the expanded learning initiative schools. Doesn’t tell you anything except that there are some smart kids in public school.

So what’s really going on here? Well, here is a clue: In addition to academics, the extended days can be used for extra time for teachers and enrichment time for kids.

Huh. WTF is enrichment time for kids? Isn’t time spent at home with family and friends enrichment time? And do you really think teachers want more time at school that is designated to give them more time at school? Especially when that time could be spent at home enriching their kids. You education bureaucrats really need to get a clue.

Which brings us back to the leveling of the playing field and the final example cited to make the strong case for longer school years

Summer is a crucial time for kids, especially poorer kids, because poverty is linked to problems that interfere with learning, such as hunger and less involvement by their parents.

A hungry child in America is a victim of child abuse and neglect, not poverty. Some people call it ‘less involvement by their parents’ and some call it poverty. Couch it however you want but it is what it is.

That makes poor children almost totally dependent on their learning experience at school, said Karl Alexander, a sociology professor at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University, home of the National Center for Summer Learning.

Disadvantaged kids, on the whole, make no progress in the summer, Alexander said. Some studies suggest they actually fall back. Wealthier kids have parents who read to them, have strong language skills and go to great lengths to give them learning opportunities such as computers, summer camp, vacations, music lessons, or playing on sports teams.

I think we now know the real premise behind Obama’s desire for longer school years: Free day care for the “disadvantaged” and government funded “enrichment time” for all.

Here are some recent examples of the materials being used during enrichment time: