A Way Ahead for Resolving the 4-Day School Week Issue

The author of this letter is Paul Benshoof. He has also sent this letter to:

Cloudcroft School Board President Bill Denney Cloudcroft School Board Vice President Jackie Cates Cloudcroft School Board Treasurer Doug Porch

Cloudcroft School Board member Gerold Green Cloudcroft School Board member Arlan Ponder

And cc’d:

State Senator Vernon Asbill

State Representative Nora Espinoza
State Representative Yvette Herrell
Secretary of Education Hanna Skandera
Deputy Secretary, Finance and Operations Paul J. Aguilar
Public Information Officer Larry Behrens

Cloudcroft Superintendent Tommie Hancock

Lately, there has been a lot of discussion in the community about a proposed 4-day school week for the Cloudcroft School System.  As a parent concerned about my son’s continuing education in these schools, I—as well as nearly 100 other interested community members—attended the last School Board meeting where this subject was on the agenda.  Unfortunately, the board suddenly decided to defer discussions on this topic to the following week, citing that they desired community feedback and the current attendees did not adequately represent the community.  I’m not sure what type of audience constitutes adequate community representation, but this move signaled that either (1) the board was unprepared to discuss the topic or (2) they didn’t really want feedback from that particular cross-section of the community.  I find both of these options unacceptable and hope the board can correct this perception at next week’s hastily scheduled meeting.  Since I personally will not be able to attend this meeting, I thought I would use this message to share my thoughts regarding the 4-day school week and the board’s decision-making process in hope that we can find a way ahead.

The 4-day school week proposal is a complex issue that deserves dedicated attention.  On the surface, a shortened school week appears to be at odds with U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s push for a six day school week to keep up with educational attainment of students from Europe and Asia.  Currently, overall U.S. academic performance appears to be languishing, with some reports suggesting that we are “less than average” when compared to international academic statistics.  Despite this, most of us understand the fiscal limitations we currently face, and something obviously needs to be done.  Perhaps a compressed school week will help reduce the financial burden, but right now the community is unclear as to how much it will help and what unintended repercussions will endure because of the change.  

To gain the community feedback the board claims to desire, there first must be some information on which the community can provide feedback.  However, discussions on the proposed 4-day school week between the board and the community have so far merely been speculative and/or emotional with very little hard data to back up asserted benefits and drawbacks of the proposed schedule.  Certainly, such data exists, since the board members repeatedly suggest that they’ve been studying the proposal for a lengthy time.  This data presumably includes historical case studies from other schools that have implemented a compressed school schedule, an analysis of relative pros and cons, and the board’s conclusions/recommendations based on that analysis.  These recommendations should include a proposed implementation plan, projected savings and other benefits, mitigation strategies to minimize potential problems, and metrics to evaluate the decision once it is put into service.  Without this data, the community cannot provide constructive feedback and, quite frankly, the board cannot make an informed decision.

In lieu of the board’s data, I have tried to collect some of my own.  My Internet search reveals that some schools have implemented a 4-day school week with some degree of success, while others have failed.  However, long-term implications on academic performance remain sketchy at best.  The data supports both academic increase and decline, which suggests that a 4-day school week implementation strategy must be well-conceived in order to be effective.  This is paramount and cannot be neglected: academic performance must remain the priority around which all other decisions are based!  In other words, we cannot afford to compromise our academic quality for the sake of saving money or any other perceived benefits.  In addition to reports of substandard U.S. performance in the international community, New Mexico is ranked last in the nation in terms of state education according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and our elementary school is not even within the top third of the state (137/377).  In a school that is already struggling to succeed, our elementary school students are probably the most vulnerable participants in a 4-day school week schedule, as their attention spans might not be ready for longer school days.  Hence, a well-thought implementation plan is essential to ensure elementary classrooms are engaging enough to support prolonged school days so that academic performance is maintained (if not improved).

Our Middle and High Schools seem to be performing substantially better (top 10% and 13% in the state, respectively), so we certainly do not want to impose schedule changes that disrupt these achievements.  Our best teachers will surely welcome longer class periods in order to maximize the classroom experience.  However, my first hand observations sadly suggest that other teachers struggle to fill their current class time with substantive curricula, so it could be a challenge for them to make longer class periods productive. Again, a successful implementation plan is key to maximizing educational benefits and minimizing wasted time, but I have not yet seen such a plan.

It is clear that some board members favor the proposed 4-day schedule, but they have not clearly indicated the rationale behind their advocacy.  Curiously, other board members have not expressed any position at all.  However, if the board really wants meaningful community feedback, then we need to understand their thoughts and concerns.  We can’t comment on a position that hasn’t been revealed, whether it be to criticize or endorse it.  Furthermore, if I suspect a conflict of opinion, I don’t see it as my responsibility to convince board members that they are wrong if they have no desire to convince me that they are right.  A responsible board member will present his/her views in writing to the public and see if they stand up to scrutiny.

In the meantime (while I wait for clearly articulated positions from the board members), I have heard some well-reasoned concerns from the community voiced at board meetings.  These concerns have garnered support from (at last count) 105 petition signatories who anxiously await a thoughtful school board response that directly addresses these concerns.  A thoughtful response will point to qualitative data and the board’s comprehensive analysis to support its conclusions.  As of yet, I have not seen it.

In summary, without a clear understanding of the board’s proposal, all the community can do is ask questions and voice speculative concerns.  We cannot reasonably provide feedback on a plan we have not seen, so for the board to request community feedback in the absence of a published plan is counter-productive.  Furthermore, without a clear understanding of each board member’s individual view on the subject, the community cannot effectively engage the board in discussions to illuminate key issues and concerns and help formulate an agreeable plan.  To this end, I urge the board to release their plan to the public, coupled with the analysis and conclusions that underpin their recommended approach.  Additionally, I recommend that each board member document his/her position in detail and allow the community to review it.  Not only will this help alleviate the perception that the board is formulating its opinion(s) on absent or incomplete data, but it will inevitably stimulate relevant community feedback and meaningful exchange among both parties, thus increasing the chances of a course of action acceptable to all.