In Michigan, the traditional 180-day, K-12 school calendar has quietly become an urban and rural legend, the victim of budget woes and state laws that emphasize minutes rather than days. If anything, the state has moved slightly backwards.
That’s the main conclusion of an updated Center for Michigan analysis of Michigan Department of Education Data. Our latest “School Daze” report below confirms our earlier findings in 2009 : Michigan school districts are using the school calendar as a budget cutting tool and continuing to offer far fewer school days than in decades past.
Changes in state law, spurred by the first School Daze report we issued in March 2009, require schools this year to begin to reverse the erosion of the school calendar.
For this updated School Daze report, we used 2008-2009 school data, the most recent available. The data, including both traditional public schools and charter schools, showed:
1) Only six of 755 school districts and charters actually held 180 days of instruction in 2008-09.
2) 140 school districts and charters scheduled 170 or fewer days, which is two weeks less instruction than state law required until 2003-04. A total of 283 districts actually held 170 or fewer days of instruction due to snow days and other cancellations.
3) Fifty-six school districts and charters lopped off at least a week of scheduled school days between the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years. Altogether, 277 cut at least a half a day from the calendar of the year before.
4) The majority of Michigan school districts and charters held more days of school in 2008-09, but that was only because fewer days were canceled. More districts (277) reduced their school calendars of scheduled days than expanded them (211).
HOW DOES YOUR DISTRICT STACK UP? CHECK HERE.
ANGST CONTINUES FROM EDUCATION LEADERS
John Austin, vice president of the Michigan State Board of Education, says the Center for Michigan’s latest findings underscore the need for comprehensive reforms that include returning the school year to 180 days or more.
“What we have seen are too many districts using the move to an hourly clock versus a school-day clock to basically reduce the whole learning time during the school year. That is unfortunate, it’s wrong, it’s not helpful to students,” Austin said. “You can micromanage the minutes of the day, but it means that kids aren’t in school as long during the year and aren’t spending as much time totally on mind, on task.”
There is no dispute that better educational outcomes are crucial to rebuilding Michigan’s economy. Employers in knowledge-based industries that pay good wages demand a highly educated and skilled work force and will locate in states that meet their needs. Michigan lags behind other states in the percent of adults with college degrees, partly because thousands of students arrive unprepared and need remediation classes.
President Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan are both advocates of a longer school year. Obama suggested that states use some of the federal stimulus day to accomplish that goal. “We can no longer afford an academic calendar designed when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land at the end of the day,” Obama said in 2009. “That calendar may have once made sense, but today, it puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea. That is no way to prepare them for a 21st century economy.”
REFORM REQUIRES MANY DISTRICTS TO ADD MORE DAYS SOON
After the Center for Michigan’s 2009 report exposed the rapidly shrinking school year in districts across the state, policymakers reacted strongly. Superintendent of Public Instruction Mike Flanagan called the practice of adding a few minutes to the school day in order to shorten the school calendar outrageous.
The Legislature held hearings that summer and took a step toward making sure students spend more days in school. Beginning this year, school districts must schedule at least 165 days of instruction, with that ratcheted up to 170 days in 2012-13. And districts that scheduled at least 165 days in 2009-10 are prohibited from shrinking their calendar.
Some school districts did increase their school calendar in 2008-09. The Stephenson Area Public Schools abandoned their experiment with a four-day week and scheduled 166 days, up from 150. Even with the extra 16 days, it’s among the fewest days in the state.
Cass City Public Schools boosted the number of days in school from 166 to 179. The district had shortened the school year in mid-year in 2007-08 because of a budget crisis. Once the finances were stabilized, the district returned to a normal calendar.
“I would never be in favor of reducing days and adding to the length of the day,” Superintendent Jeff Hartel said. “If anything, I’d like to see more days added to the school year.”
EROSION CONTINUES IN SOME PLACES
Other districts chopped the instructional calendar.
In 2007-2008, the Carrollton School District in Saginaw County scheduled 185 days of school, the most of any traditional public school district in Michigan. The following fall, students got a 170-day calendar, a full two weeks less than the 180 days that were the standard for decades.
The reduction, made possible by the state’s shift from school-day requirements to school-hour minimums, came in the give-and-take of contract negotiations. Most of it is accomplished by eliminating half-days, says Superintendent Craig Douglas, along with ending the school year earlier. Douglas says he believes students are still getting a quality education, but he’s upfront in saying he’d like to see students spending more days, not fewer, in the classroom.
“If you made me ruler, we’d go year-round. … I have had the chance to go to China and India both. I know they are beating us in time on task,” Douglas said. “I think it’s going to be harder for us to get back to that threshold (of 180 days). I don’t know what to expect in negotiations, but I can tell you that generally speaking, adding those days back is a tougher climb.”
Lawmakers opened the door to a shrinking calendar in the 2003-04 school year, when they changed time-in-school requirements from 180 days to 1,098 hours. The argument for the change was that some school districts – especially rural ones in northern Michigan — could reduce non-academic costs such as transportation and utilities.
MANY DISTRICTS DON’T MAKE UP SNOW DAYS
And students are spending less time in class for another reason. For years, school officials were only allowed to cancel school twice without makeup days. Lawmakers extended that to 30 hours (now “six days or equivalent hours”), and they can seek approval of an additional six days or equivalent hours for extenuating circumstances that occur after April 1. In 2008-2009, a total of 175 school districts canceled at least five days of classes, or the hourly equivalent.
GAP WITH REST OF WORLD IS GROWING
Now, many education leaders say the reduction in school days has gone too far and undermines Michigan’s efforts to educate its students in highly competitive national and global economies. That includes Superintendent Flanagan, who also served as an adviser to Governor Rick Snyder’s transition team.
“Mike believes very strongly that the number of days that students attend school is important,” said Department of Education spokeswoman Jan Ellis. “Mike talks regularly about our kids’ need to compete globally for jobs later on, and students in many other countries are going well over 200 days a year.”
The gap between the number of days most Michigan students spend in school and those in other states and countries has widened since Michigan began counting hours, rather than days. Some international competitors, such as South Korea and Japan, offer 220 days or more. Western European countries have longer calendars as well.
In the United States, most states set requirements by days rather than hours, although some states have moved to an hourly standard, according to the Education Commission of the States, a nonprofit, nonpartisan interstate compact that helps policymakers and others develop policies to improve student learning. Twenty-nine states require 180 days, and two mandate even more days.
Kathy Christie, the commission’s chief of staff, says that it is difficult to compare requirements between states. For example, some states count professional-development days as school days, while others do not. Some schools might have six-hour days, others five-and-a-half. Some count minutes spent at lunch or between classes in their school hours.
And, she said, there isn’t research to show that more days in school will lead to better education outcomes. “What matters most, is the quality of the time,” she said.
There’s also no research showing that school districts can slice 10, 15 or 20 days from the calendar without educational consequence. And there are studies that suggest that longer summer vacations — a common byproduct of fewer school days — result in greater learning loss, especially among disadvantaged students who are less likely to have summer enrichment opportunities.
The decision to allow school districts to reduce the number of school days by lengthening them was primarily an economic decision, and, ultimately, any efforts to restore the 180-day school year in Michigan will have to take that into consideration. While lawmakers have made K-12 a higher budget priority than other areas, including higher education, schools have dealt with state funding cuts, and many with declining enrollment, which translates into fewer state dollars.
State Sen. Phil Pavlov, a St. Clair Township Republican who was vice chair of the House Education Committee and was elected to the Senate in November, says studies can support arguments for or against requiring a longer school calendar.
“A lot of northern districts that took advantage of it (shortening the calendar by lengthening the day) will be hard-pressed to give it up,” said Pavlov. “The local school board is in a good position to make that determination. If you can stretch that dollar and put those resources into the classroom instead of the fuel tank of the school bus, kids win.”
State Sen. Wayne Kuipers, a Holland Republican and chair of the Senate Education Committee, says he supports a longer school year but says those issues will be left to the incoming chair, who has not been named. Kuipers was prevented by term limits from seeking re-election.
“If you look at some of the countries that we compete with, they have a full eight-hour day, and they have more days,” he said. “If we are going to get serious about keeping up with the rest of the world in terms of education, it is going to require some pretty significant changes.”
But given the state’s financial constraints, he said, lawmakers will need to think creatively about a solution. Otherwise, he said, the state potentially runs into an obstacle in the Headlee amendment, which requires the state to pay for services that it mandates.
“If you are going to do it, you’d have to say next year we are going to increase the foundation grant by X number of dollars for those school districts that add 20 days,” he said.
The State Board of Education is calling for a comprehensive approach to stabilizing and restructuring the school finance system. Austin said he hopes Snyder and the new legislature will make that a priority.
“We haven’t had a big budget solution that says in return for stabilizing or increasing investment in our education system, we expect you to go back to the 180 (or more) days,” Austin said. “That I think is what it will take to really move the needle.”




17 Comments
I hope that education is at the top of Snyder’s list. In order to create more jobs and be innovative, Michigan needs a well educated work force. The Gov can make cuts in other areas, but education must remain the # priority if Michigan is to grow and prosper.
Why fewer days? It’s economics! By adding time to remaining days, schools can save on money on busing, food service, heat, electricity, etc. I also suspect the quoted figures include private, parochial and charter schools who are not all bound by the same rules as public K-12 school districts. If these were included, the statistics would appear lower than what one would expect them to be.
The focus on the number of days is a diversion from the only real issue which is, what is the best way to educate children? Until parents have more real choices which will provide competition, leading to innovation, I fear our schools will not significantly improve.
In evaluation there are traditionally three areas: input, process and output. Output is then divided into short term, intermediate term and long term outcomes. Almost all evaluation of schools is input (are the teachers qualified) , process (how many students per class, number of days of instruction) and short term outcomes (multiple choice test scores). Rarely is there any intermediate outcome, and even rarer long term, evaluation.
How successful are the students in what they aspire to be. Do they succeed in college, in skilled trades, on the job, do they vote, are they good citizens, what percent are entrepreneurial?
What do we really want the schools to achieve? I’m certain it is much more than just have 180 days of instruction.
On a side note we always compare the # of school days a year with foreign countries. What almost no one knows is that US school teachers teach more hours a year than any other nation, almost double of some.
See the excel file at
http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?ID=5378_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC
I can guess what the media would say if US teachers had the in-school planning and preparation time of the teachers of virtually every other country.
Less money = less school. If we want better education in Michigan, we need to pay for it, and pay for it with predictability and consistency.
I don’t believe less money = less school. I believe careful watch of expenditures, an interesting curriculam, dedicated teachers, and accountability all lead to better education. We should really look at where our educational dollars are going – are they going to administration rather than into the classroom? One could go on and on. The money spent per student ranks near the top in the world. The results rank near the bottom.
A program that was in place during the 1970′s was the 45-15 plan in Northville. This could be one option for getting back to the number of days in school. It would change the way we look at the school year. A key as others have said is funding. Everyone will have to decide if we are looking at hours or days that a students needs to be in school. My preference is a mastery system where a student meets what is expected of them in a rigorous program. “Nobody rises to low expectations.”
I propose changing the state motto from “If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you” to “Expect More – Pay Less”…
Where did the Center get this information? My sister is a teacher in Ann Arbor. She and her principal counted their calendar and came up with 181 days. Just wondering why there would be such a difference?
We have been receiving a lot of lip service about education being key to the state’s turnaround. It’s time to make education a ‘real’ priority and institute equitable and stable funding. Legislators have shifted this responsibility to local boards that are being drained by structural costs that grow exponentially year to year. I am in favor of restructuring our calender that enhances education not based on the Farmer’s Almanac, reflective of 21st century, not 19th century America.
Here we go – another educational hit piece focusing on the minutia rather than the results. Where’s the data that shows shorter calendars lead to lower MEAP scores? It doesn’t exist. Education has become so politicized that in order to stop the floggings schools have focused their efforts and expenses on improving MEAP scores because that’s the litmus test dujour in education today – until the next round of legislators changes it.
The world is becoming a wireless, PDA, remote learning environment before our eyes yet all the media and pol’s can focus on is how many days our kids have their butt in a school chair. What a disconnected bunch of Baby Boomer blowhards.
Unfortunate that those in positions that can effect change misunderstand that which they are responsible for.
It is especially disturbing to hear the President of the State School Board equate days spent in school as “time on task”. How can we have any meaningful “time on task” when each school day is broken up into discrete subjects (educational silos) linked to the clock. This failed practice is now creeping into third grade classrooms disrupting a meaningful learning process.
Obsessing about the raw number of days in school without consideration of context, a context some of the respondents have pointed out, is a misrepresentation linking a singular fact (days in school) to educational outcomes. Not only is this bad thinking it violates the basic principles of proper use of statistics.
Days in school is a measure, but only one, and a very weak indicator at that. It contains very little information upon which to base sound decision making and worse, misleads the public.
Please use factual information when slamming schools. I teach in Algonac, where students attended school for 180 school days, not the reported 179. As stated above, most schools have increased minutes to their day so that schools can cost effectively continue to educate our students, however that was neglected to be mentioned and the article solely focused on cutting back number of days. Let’s face the real issue here, and that is lack of funding. Schools have had to face big cut backs – that requires schools to make cuts as well or be faced with consolidation. By the way Mr. Douglas, I love being compared to communist countries such as China. Do you really think they educate all chilren there? Countries that you have mentioned are ones where only the best, brightest or most affluent attend school. Do you really think you’re comparing apples to apples? The bottom line is this – instead of finding fault – find us funding.
It is unfortunate that outdated data is so often used. It does not reflect our addition of 8 days since this data, nor does it consider the continuing addition of days each year. Cameron Clark, Director, CASMAN Academy
All this data is well and good! BUT , especially for small districts, WHO will pay for the budget increases necessary to do this? Oh, I know, cut workers pay & benefits and some how apply those savings to longer calendars!! Employees get thoir pay cut and GET TO WORK EXTRA for free! Great! (Hope you see my cynicism here!) Schools cancel days because of weather or no funds, not to intentionally short change kids!! Is 2 days or 4 days really making a difference year to year?
Want longer calendars – PAY FOR IT or stop this talk! We as a state can’t pay our bills now!!
Extremely well researched and informative story. Thank you!
Education is expensive, check the growing college tuition rates. We can complain about lack of competition, or unjust spending in schools, but those are issues that resolve only a small percentage of the problems we are facing. Just turning on the heat, running buses, and food service costs way more than most people suspect per day. Those are issues every school system, private or public is struggling to meet.