BE OUR GUEST

By Robert E. Bartman

Missouri Commissioner of Education

The idea of a longer school year for public school students is slowly gaining converts, and I hope this trend will gain momentum in Missouri. I am convinced that a longer school year 200 days or more will eventually become accepted in America, and I hope Missouri will lead the way.

A year ago, the State Board of Education and I proposed legislation to extend the school year in Missouri to 200 days by the end of the 1990s. State law now requires public schools to have at least a 174-day calendar one of the lowest requirements in the nation.

Although that proposal was not approved, it triggered debate about the pros and cons of a longer school year. Now, this issue is receiving national attention and discussion. We have a long way to go before the idea of extending the school year gains general acceptance, but the State Board of Education and I will continue promoting the idea.

Few people are aware of this fact, but a growing number of Missouri students are already going to school for 200 days or more. I was surprised, too, when I saw the statistics confirming this recent trend.

During the last school year (1989-90), about 57,000 Missouri students attended classes for 200 days or more. This is an increase of nearly one-third since 1986. Those 57,000 students were about 7 percent of the 80,000 students in our public schools.

The main reason for this increase is that more local school districts are offering remedial summer programs and a growing variety of summer enrichment courses. The 57,000 students who took advantage of summer programs last year are just the ones we can count officially. We don't know how many are enrolled in programs offered by private schools and higher education institutions.

I am encouraged by this trend, and I applaud the schools that are developing new programs to extend students' learning opportunities. Moreover, the expansion of summer school programs demonstrates that an extended school year is practical and that there is, in fact, a demand for such opportunities. Many families, for example, are willing to spend substantial sums to send their students to specialized programs outside the regular school year.

One of the major barriers to extending the school year is the outdated notion that only remedial students need more time for learning. Traditionally, summer school has been offered only for students who need extra help or who have failed courses. As a result, summer school is widely viewed as a penalty. We need to overcome this attitude. As a society, we need to accept the idea that more schooling can be productive and beneficial for everyone.

Providing more time for learning in our schools doesn't mean we should just add 26 more days of "more of the same." Instead, I think we should try new approaches that will motivate students and teachers alike. I think there is great potential for schools to experiment with short courses, summer academies, academic camps, cooperative programs with other schools, and specialized enrichment activities that are tailored to the needs and interests of different groups.

At the state level, we are now considering a change in policy to provide more financial aid for school bus service in summer school programs. Currently, state aid for summer transportation is available only to school districts that offer special education classes or federally funded remedial programs. Changing this policy would make the transportation funding system fairer for all school districts.

The State Board of Education may take action on this policy in the near future. Providing more financial support for summer school transportation is a tangible action that would demonstrate the state's interest in providing more opportunities for students, and it could be a strong incentive for school districts to expand their summer offerings.

Perhaps the most common objection to extending the school year is that it is too hot for children during the summer months. I don't accept this argument. Many school districts already have access to at least some air conditioned facilities. Schools are already "beating the heat" by starting earlier in the day and dismissing at noon during summer sessions. And in the future, as school districts renovate and replace buildings, I believe that buildings designed for year-round use will become commonplace.

In other words, we can solve the problems relating to a longer school year if we want to. The real obstacle is "buying" the idea that more time for learning is important for our kids. Once we accept this idea, lack of air conditioning and other concerns will no longer be serious problems.

Missouri's current school calendar was established nearly 40 years ago. This calendar is simply outmoded and unsuited for contemporary conditions. We've got to leave the 1950s behind and reorganize our school system for the 21st century.

In order for our kids to achieve what we expect of them and for our nation to remain economically competitive I am convinced we must give them more time to learn.

For the time being, I am not too concerned about how we reach that goal. We need to experiment with a variety of approaches. It is going to take time for students, parents, teachers and taxpayers to accept the need for change in traditional school schedules.