The pandemic-prompted shift to crisis schooling creates an opportunity to reconsider many aspects of U.S. public education. School closures have reignited the long-running debate over seat time. But, in making the argument to end the standard, 180-day school year, pundits are failing to consider what it means to guarantee equal access to education across an uneven playing field.
For some education critics, the pandemic seems like the perfect opportunity to dump the seat time model.
First, there are two major variables when designing an educational system: how much time students spend in class, and what they are supposed to learn.
U.S. schools have usually chosen time as the fixed variable, with students attending school for half a year for seven to eight hours per day. The amount of learning, however, is far less rigid; though standards and testing try to enforce a certain minimum, it largely falls on students and teachers to determine how much material will be covered and learned.
Periodically, education critics have argued that we should flip the formula entirely by making learning the fixed variable, and allowing students to stay home when they master the material.
While each approach presents its own set of challenges, the COVID-19 pandemic has put both variables up for grabs. No one really knows how much seat time or actual learning will be required this year.
For some education critics, the pandemic seems like the perfect opportunity to dump the seat time model. This crisis, they argue, will prove that there’s nothing magical about sitting in a classroom for 180 days.
But I’d like to suggest that there’s another way to frame this conversation.
Admittedly, my perspective is informed by my attitude about teaching. I went into the field because I believe that education is a valuable right—maybe even a privilege—but definitely not a chore. While my argument centers on the seat time debate, it also addresses the discussion on whether or not the school year should simply be ended because it is too hard to implement “remote learning” for every student.
Let’s say that at birth, everyone is handed some tools and materials. Your task, over those first eighteen years, is to build the house that you will live in as an adult.
Right off the bat, there are equity issues. Some parents have plenty to share with their children, and some do not. Some parents have plenty of time to sit and help their children work on the building, and some do not. Some parents have plenty of house-building expertise, and some do not.
It is in society’s best interest that every person have a nice home to live in as an adult. But while some families have all the resources necessary to make sure their children build fine homes, others do not.
One solution could be to create a shared work space where all the young folks can come together to spend some time working on their houses, assisted by building experts with good tools and materials.
We might send each child home once they have built a basic shack, but that creates a different equity issue—because time is a resource. Chris, for example, may take ten weeks to build a shack. But Pat was sent home after completing his shack in five weeks, with Pat’s parents arguing, “If Pat had had another five weeks, he could have added some nice extra features to his shack.”
As it is, Pat has spent those five extra weeks doing very little, because there are few materials in Pat’s home to build with.
Hence, the shared work space comes with a promise—everyone is guaranteed a certain amount of time to work on their “house.” They are also guaranteed that they will end up with that minimum shack, but if they can use their time to build a bigger, grander house, they are guaranteed the chance to do that, too.
There will still be inequities in the system. The children from homes with more resources will be able to build all sorts of lovely porches and fancy kitchens and other fine features on their own time. Some shared work spaces will have fewer tools and less materials to offer their young builders, and folks who could help with that problem will say, “Why should we help those people?” or “They should build some bootstraps of their own.”
These problems of inequity will be highlighted in times of crisis. If the work spaces have to be shut down, some students will be able to continue working on their house with their families, while others will be stuck. Canceling or reducing the work space days is tantamount to canceling the guarantee that we made to those children.
Opponents of the seat time approach have said that giving children more time to pursue their own educational goals is valuable, and that may be true for students whose families have the resources to do so.
But, given that getting rid of the 180-day rule could increase inequalities that already exist, we should make sure to give each student the time they need to build the best house they can.