Whether or not one embraces year-round schooling, the fact that schools come to a complete stop in May or June and are resuscitated in August or September leads undeniably to serious inefficiencies. Visiting a typical public school in the middle of July is like touring the set of a "zombie apocalypse" movie being filmed in Hollywood.
Short of year-long schooling, schools could be kept running during the summer months to maintain some sense of institutional momentum. Teachers could use that time to prepare for the coming academic year, update records, and engage in 'professional development' and in-service continuing education.
Currently, the last one or two weeks of the school year are ineffective as a great deal of effort goes into ending the year; the first one or two weeks are ineffective as time and energy are spent jumpstarting the school year. From a perspective of industrial efficiency, shutting the institution down so thoroughly makes little sense.
In any case, however, elementary and secondary pupils in the United States do not need more total minutes or hours of time in school. The optimal configuration would be to shorten the school day and lengthen the school year.
A survey of the global trends shows that from the huge amount of school time (long days and long academic years) in some east Asian countries, to the relatively short school days in some central European countries, there is no direct correlation between amount of time spent in school and academic achievement.
There is, however, an negative impact on the individual student which increases with the amount of time spent in an institutional setting. To foster the twin necessary preconditions for civilization, the recognition of the individual and the value of liberty, school age children should spend time outside of institutions.
To foster the humanistic behaviors which we would like to see in society - altruism, honesty, justice, etc. - a child likewise is best directed to home and family, which are the source of such values. Is it any wonder that the problem of 'bullying' has become a popular topic of discussion, after our society has consigned children to ever longer hours of being warehoused in some institution?
To be sure, family environments are not perfect, and some can be dysfunctional and even dangerous. But they do have at least the possibility of providing a positive environment for children. By contrast, many public schools are configured in way which, while providing tolerable to good to even excellent academic education, cannot offer character formation which includes the humanistic virtues which we might like to see.
Indeed, despite their best efforts, they cannot offer them; even more, because of their best efforts, they cannot offer them. Because they are government institutions, they are a priori destined to fail.
As seeming counter-evidence, we see teachers who are truly beneficial to their students, and students who truly acquire these very virtues and character traits. How then, in the face of such counter-evidence, do we know that the schools are incapable of bestowing desirable socialization to students? Because these counter-examples are brought about, not because of the schools, but rather despite the schools, by teachers who exemplify the literal meaning of the word 'subversive.'
A teacher who manages to impart some such salutary experience to students is doing so in an effort to undermine the system.
The chimera of a school-imparted socialization arises from the notion that methodologies and the scribblings of educational 'experts' are of value. Universities across the land have schools of education, in which writings and lectures are produced, giving the impression that education is a science and that these experts can calmly direct the professional activities of teachers. As Mortimer Smith writes:
Can our own age be said to exhibit distinctive points of view, habits of thought, or philosophical attitudes to a degree great enough to constitute a "spirit of the times"? I am not prepared to make any sweeping generalizations about the matter, but it does seem to me that there are two rather obvious tendencies present in our contemporary world which make our own times somewhat unique. We live in a period when the concept of the importance of the individual has been largely replaced by the concept of the social, and when it is widely believed that all personal and social problems can be resolved by use of the scientific method. These two tendencies are in evidence in much current thinking and especially in our thinking about educational matters.
Because the social sciences are largely not sciences, and because the 'spirit of the times' allows institutional whims to overrule personal sovereignty, the educational system is ripe for hijacking.
The system is regularly hijacked by those with political and social agendas, by those who allege that they're acting the in best interests of students, yet who have no concern for student achievement. The system is hijacked by those who proclaim that they'll socialize students, and thereby claim the right to formulate 'affective goals', which is to say that the institution can and should shape what and how the students think and believe.
In a society founded on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, and the right 'peaceably to assemble' in free association, the notion that the school should shape the non-academic aspects of children's lives is perplexing.
The notion of 'socialization' in school is a challenge to a free society.
For this reason, while it is good to extend the operational calendar of the schools by maintaining more staff in the summer - in practical terms, teachers working in their offices and classrooms during the summer - there is no need to increase the total number of hours and minutes children spend in school. Indeed, children might be best served by reducing that time.
