Preserving the Learning Environment: Leadership for Time.

Concerns about effective use of school instructional time have been evident for many years. The more stringent demands of the newer accountability mechanisms have obligated educators to renew efforts to optimize the teaching and learning process. This study addressed the nature and extent of classroom instructional time erosion by external intrusion. More than 200 principals and assistant principals in 149 schools and 12 Louisiana school districts participated in a self-administered survey. The results indicate that encroachment upon instructional time remains problematic in many schools and that the leadership to adequately address the circumstance may be lacking. The expectations of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) and consequent directives from state education agencies have created an intensifying demand for schools to better utilize instructional time. Educators at all levels of the public education enterprise are being held increasingly accountable for student performance, especially on highstakes, standardized examinations. Yet, ironically, this circumstance may be serving to further increase pressure on allocated time as schools and teachers are obligated to address the additional state and district guidelines. Nonetheless, the circumstance has reinvigorated the decades-old debate about instructional time usage and whether variations in ‘time-on-task’ significantly impact student learning. Generally speaking, there is wide consensus that academic time expenditures are extremely important, but there is also the recognition that other mitigating factors are important – such as the quality of instructional strategies and the nature of student learning engagement (Metzker, 2003; Aronson, Zimmerman & Carlos, 1999; Carroll, 1963). Even so, there are persistent indicators that many schools are failing to take appropriate steps to consistently protect the teaching and learning environment from external interferences. Notwithstanding the attention given to this matter in the research literature and in exigent formalized policies, there is cogent evidence that classroom instructional time in many schools remains routinely assailable and, consequently, is subject to continual erosion. Recent empirical studies – including one addressed in depth here and undertaken from the perspectives of more than 200 site-based administrators in a dozen north Louisiana school systems – as well as a number of other anecdotal indicators, signify that the problem continues to defy resolution. Instructional Time Use Published concerns about the erosion of class instructional time in publicly-funded school systems is not a recent phenomenon. More than 80 years ago, noted American psychologist and educational innovator Sidney Pressey bemoaned what he perceived to be the wasteful consumption of instructional time at his daughter’s elementary school. Half a century later, David Gilman replicated Pressey’s school visitation by accompanying his own daughter to school (Gilman, 1973). Like Pressey, Gilman found that the school day was characterized by organizational inefficiencies and administrator and teacher mismanagement. Ten years later, the seminal report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE, 1983) criticized the deteriorating condition of American public education. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform appealed to educators at all levels to make more effective use of the school day by expending more time on the actual teaching and learning process. Other studies of the period supported the supposition of instructional time wastage (i.e, Boyer, 1983; Goodlad, 1984; Gilman & Knoll, 1984). A decade afterward, in its treatise entitled Prisoners of Time, the National Education and Commission on Time and Learning (NECTL, 1994) charged that inadequate attention was being given to how school time was expended and that the “misuse of time” was having deleterious effects on student opportunities to learn; it called for a “transformation in attitudes” about academic time use (p.9-10). The Commission concluded that “reclaiming the academic day” by implementing better policies and practices would almost double the amount of core curriculum instructional time (p. 32). In an attempt to establish the extent of instructional time wastage, a number of research reports calculated that large portions of the school day were expended on such organizational and managerial events and activities as betweenclass transitions, lunch periods, and non-curricular transactions such as student clubs and athletic assemblies. In each case, it was determined that more than half of a typical school day was consumed by non-instructional matters (Boyer, 1983; Rossmiller, 1983; Goodlad, 1984; Gilman & Knoll, 1984; Walberg, Niemiec, & Frederick, 1994; NECTL, 1994; Good & Brophy, 1997). Furthermore, several studies determined that actual student engagement in learning tasks was further diminished as teachers addressed school administrative and classroom management matters (Meehan, Cowley, Schumacher, Hauser, & Croom, 2003; Metzker, 2003; Aronson, Zimmerman, & Carlos, 1999). In fact, Metzker concluded that as much as 23% of in-class time was spent on non-instructional activities. The problem of non-productive use of class instructional time has not been limited to American schools. For instance, a study commissioned by a provincial government in eastern Canada determined that 28% of instructional time was lost to various forms of unplanned interruptions (Royal Commission Implementation Secretariat, 1995). Another Canadian study found there were regular and extensive encroachments upon time allocated for instructional purposes (Leonard, 1999). In Great Britain, Varley and Busher (1989) developed categories of intrusions they found in British schools. The continuum ranged from those being totally unavoidable (e.g., student illness, building structural damage), to unavoidable and outside the teacher’s control (e.g., maintenance work, medical appointments), avoidable interruptions (e.g., unscheduled parental visits; student messages), and planned interruptions (visiting presenters, parent helpers). Varley and Busher determined that there were fewer interruptions in schools which had adopted and enforced policies prohibiting them. A similar conclusion was reached by Stringfield and Teddlie (1991) in the U.S. in that better performing schools were found to be headed by principals who enforced policies that protected teachers’ and students’ classroom time. It is the nature and impact of unplanned intrusions into classroom operations which this report is primarily concerned. External Interruptions There is considerable empirical research and anecdotal evidence that the erosion of class instructional time has been and remains to be a concern for many teachers and administrators. Commonly identified sources of external classroom interruptions include unscheduled visitations by other teachers, students, and parents; public address system announcements; telephone calls, outside noises, student call-outs, and fire drills (France, 2005; Leonard, 1999/ 2001; Stringfield & Teddlie, 1991). Hong (2001) charged that “classroom teachers are less and less in control of their students’ time” (p. 712) and that “too many intrusions” impedes teaching and learning (p. 714). In his role as an educational consultant and student teacher supervisor, Elovitz (2002) expressed amazement at how often he has witnessed instruction interrupted by public address announcements, student pull-outs, and classroom visitors. He provided the following example: Early last year, I watched as a student teacher’s middle school science class was interrupted six times during a single lesson. Three of the interruptions were public address announcements; another was caused by a music teacher who summoned two students and stood there as they packed up, marched to the front of the room, and out the door. The next interruption was from a staff member who just had to tell the cooperating teacher something from the doorway. The final interruption was the return of the young musicians. How are the teachers and students to remain focused with all of these distractions (pp. 57-58)? More recently, in a study of classroom interruptions at a Tennessee elementary school, France (2005) found that a majority of the teachers and students were disturbed by regular intrusions and that learning was interrupted. France also determined that most participating teachers felt interruptions caused students to become off-task and that greater effort was needed to decrease their frequency. The extent and nature of external intrusions was evidenced in an earlier empirical study involving a dozen schools in three Saskatchewan, Canada school districts. Leonard (1999) determined that outside interruptions occurred, on average, every 25 minutes, that is, 12 times per day, or more than 2 thousand times per academic year and that a majority of teachers considered the circumstance to be a serious problem. A subsequent study undertaken by Leonard (2003) in Louisiana schools found that many teachers there were also frustrated by significant amounts of instructional time lost to external interference. One high school teacher expressed his concerns this way: The momentum is lost! Modification of lessons becomes necessary – often resulting in a less effective lesson. Students often interpret any interruption as a signal class is over (p. 22). The issue of classroom interruptions is evident in Internet discussion forums or weblogs, more commonly known as blogs. One blog hosted by ProTeacher Community includes a number of recent postings by teachers expressing concern and frustration with circumstances at their schools. One teacher wrote: My classes are interrupted continuously throughout the day by the office calling my room via the intercom, by other students sent as messengers, by other teachers, etc. And most of the