GAY GEISER-SANDOVAL -- Educationally Speaking

Maybe we should require our governors, presidents and lawmakers to

have degrees in education as they spend so much time coming up with plans

to save our students. Instead of using pilot programs to determine

whether their programs are effective, and studying empirical data to

support a full-fledged change, they reach into the magic hat for the next

plan. Instead of providing money to teachers or school boards to

implement programs that would work best for each individual student,

classroom or school, the plans are dispersed on a statewide or

countrywide basis. Many are voluntary, but the money is tied to the plan.

A case in point is the plan to spend millions of tax dollars to solve

the educational problems of the middle school student by extending the

school year by an extra 30 days. Because kids in middle school were not

the recipients of class-size reduction, the politicians decided to fix

their educational ills with more school days. Districts don’t have to do

it, but if they don’t, they don’t get the money.

The problems are many. For one, while there is consensus that

kindergarten is elementary school and 12th grade is high school, what is

middle school anyway? There can’t be many districts with as many choices

as we have. One of our intermediate schools has sixth, seventh and eighth

grades, while another just has seventh and eighth grades. A large number

of our students don’t go to a separate middle school, but go to schools

that contain seventh through 12th grades. Talk about equal protection

issues in a few square miles; if some sixth-graders have the opportunity

to spend an additional 30 days in school, should the majority of the

district’s sixth-graders who are still on elementary school campuses not

receive the same option? If so, would sixth-graders be clustered on a few

campuses for the extra 30 days?

And what of seventh- and eighth-grade students at the high school

campuses who often take high school classes during those years? What

would they do during the periods when they would normally go to a high

school math, foreign language or elective class? As Stanford 9 and Golden

State exams are scheduled for May, wouldn’t teachers still need to cover

their current curriculum by then anyway, even if the school year is

extended? Then, would the curriculum for the extra 30 days be at all

connected with what the student had been studying for the rest of the

year? Or would it be 30 days of videos?

And then there is the problem of who would be at the head of the class

for those extra 30 days? Because the plan provides for a 17% pay increase to teachers who take on the extra month’s assignment, the most willing

candidates might be teachers who are about to retire and want to have a

higher final year of compensation for their retirement pay. Can you

imagine having a burned-out high school teacher with no junior high

experience teaching squirrelly middle school students who know that their

brothers and sisters are already out for the summer?

Some kids are far behind by middle school. They really need help. Why

don’t we take the money and spend it to make small summer school classes

for the kids who are failing, and then make them go to summer school?

Give those kids extensive help in math and reading.

The kids who do their homework and study during the regular school

year would have the reward of getting out of school with the rest of the

grade levels. Then, maybe it would give more middle school students a

reason to pay attention in school for the first 180 days, so they

wouldn’t have to do an extra six weeks. But, what do I know? I’m not a

politician.

* GAY GEISER-SANDOVAL is a Costa Mesa resident. Her column runs

Tuesdays. She may be reached by e-mail at [email protected].