|
|
| |
|
|
|
| What Works? |
| |
| Optimizing Time on Task |
| The PIT vs. IT Dilemma |
| By Gordon Carlson |
| Researcher, DataWORKS Educational Research |
|
Madeline Hunter told us, "Anticipatory Set." Get your kids’ attention and
then instruction should flow smoothly for the remainder of the period. This is nice in theory.
However, when reality sets in, the PIT vs. IT dilemma rears its proverbial, ugly head.
|
|
PIT or Potential Instructional Time represents the exact amount of time available to a teacher during
the school year for standards-based instruction in a specific discipline. For example, a teacher who
teaches a 55-minute English 9 class in high school has a potential instructional time (PIT) of
9,900 minutes (180 days times 55 minutes per day). Likewise, an elementary teacher who provides 90
minutes of reading instruction per day has a reading PIT of 16,200 minutes (180 days times 90 minutes per day).
Our PIT is the theoretical, best-case amount of time teachers have to impart to students a specific set
of grade-level standards.
|
|
Here is where the PIT vs. IT dilemma unfolds. Actual instructional time for the year, IT,
is not equal to PIT. In fact, the formula PIT minus all interruptions minus all non-value added
activities minus all local, state, and district mandates equals instructional time IT. It is easy
to see that IT is not equal to PIT.
|
|
There are numerous system-induced and system-controlled variables that regularly reduce potential
instructional time (PIT) during the school year. The following chart identifies many of these
intrusions that fall into three major categories:
|
| |
| Academic Activities |
| Interruptions |
Non (academic value) Added Activities |
Local/State/Federal Mandates |
| Intercom announcements |
Extensive coloring |
State & Federal testing |
| Telephone calls |
Unrelated videos |
Alcohol & Drug education |
| Runners from office |
Pep assemblies |
In-class guidance counseling |
| Security personnel |
Fund-raisers & cookie sales |
Pull-outs |
| Groundskeepers |
Parties |
Special-ed. Activities |
| Fire drills |
Crafting activities |
Local assessments |
| Unruly students |
Play days and Fun Friday |
Breakfast and lunch counts |
| Adult visitors |
Long transitions |
CELDT testing |
| School construction |
Unrelated field trips |
|
| Staggered lunch noise |
Student body activities |
|
| |
School photographs |
|
| |
Graduation practice |
|
|
|
After reviewing this chart, one can easily be misled regarding the impact of these
intrusions when looking at them only on a per event basis.
|
|
Lose a minute here, three minutes there, another two minutes here.
What’s the dilemma? Well, when one examines the cumulative impact of such time-diminishing
intrusions over the course of a year, the dilemma becomes evident. We are losing anywhere
from 10% to 25% to 33% of our potential instructional time.
|
|
For example, taking four minutes longer than necessary when student’s transition from
one activity to the next during a class period translates into losing 720 minutes of instructional time per
year. Five minutes of intercom announcements per day translates into a loss of 900 minutes of
instructional time per year. When one thinks of a typical classroom, a PIT vs. IT scenario for a school
year might look like this:
|
| Math Potential Instuction Time |
9,900 Minutes |
| Interruptions |
-1,200 Minutes |
| Non-value added activities |
-1,500 Minutes |
| Mandates |
-500 Minutes |
| Total Lost Time |
3200 Minutes (53 hours) |
| Available Math Instructional Time (IT) |
6,700 Minutes |
|
|
The lost time is fifty-three hours that could have been used for meaningful standards-based
classroom instruction. Fifty-three hours that might be the difference between 45% of the
class mastering the standards and 80% of the class doing so. Fifty-three hours that might mean
the difference between a 500 API and a 650 API when considered school-wide. Looking at this dilemma
over thirteen years of education, we conceivably lose over four years of instructional time*.
|
|
Does this dilemma exist at your school? Take some time to check it out!
|
|
Time on task is one of the components of classroom productivity.
Below is a table of the components and their minimum goals:
|
| DataWORKS Classroom Productivity Index (DPI) |
| Time on Task |
95% of time students are engaged in academic activities |
| Alignment to Standards |
90% of assignments are on grade level per standards. |
| Breadth of Standards |
90% of the strands are taught before state testing date.
|
| Instructional Effectiveness |
90% of classtime is spent with teacher using effective, research-based instructional practices.
|
|
|
Improved teaching MAKES test scores go up. If your school reform is not improving the
capabilities of all the classroom teachers, do something else. Increasing classroom
productivity should be the goal of all school reform efforts. When students are taught more,
they learn more and score higher on state tests.
|
|
* Note: Information in this newsletter is based on DataWORKS Educational Research’s
observations of over 10,000 classrooms across the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
