Kimmel on Rigor and Study Halls

The local media recently reported that last year’s SAT scores for Norwalk high school students were again below state averages, and that there was still a large achievement gap among our secondary school students. Also of interest was a report that Norwalk did not have a single Merit Scholarship semifinalist – not to mention finalist – last year. Cities the size of Norwalk generally have a few semifinalists each year.

In response to this information, Superintendent Marks, who characterized the SAT scores as “disappointing,” emphasized the need to add “rigor” to the city’s curriculum and instructional practices. Her forceful public statements, predictably, generated a discussion of the definition of “rigor” and, more importantly, what exactly was going on in our classrooms.

Of course, I agree that all instruction should be consistently demanding. But I have reservations about the concept of “rigor.” It is vague and means different things to different people. And how is it measured? If test scores are low, do we ipso facto attribute them to the absence of rigorous instruction? Since I see the word cropping up in newspapers and magazines frequently, could it be merely another buzzword, just as “reflection” was the word of choice a few years back among educational experts?

(One measure of “rigor” that might prove illuminating would be the percentages of students in Advance Placement courses who pass the end-of-year AP tests with scores of three, four or five. If it turns out that Norwalk has comparatively few fours and fives, I believe it would be safe to assume “rigor” is truly a problem in our school system.)

I would prefer to examine something more concrete than “rigor,” such as the amount  of classroom instruction students actually receive. A few weeks back, our Superintendent mentioned instructional time as something she planned to look into. I agree, and would suggest that one area worthy of examination is the number of our high school students who average more than one study hall per day.

In January 2007, during an early discussion of the 2007-2008 operating budget, former Superintendent Corda presented the Board of Education with statistics showing that many of our high school students had multiple study halls each day. He attributed this peculiar situation to staffing problems and the absence of electives caused by budget cuts, and it became a rationale for a Board-approved request – that was shot down by the Common Council and Board of Estimate and Taxation – to increase spending by roughly 7.8 percent.

During that year’s budget discussion, I discovered there was (and still is) an interesting debate going on across the nation on the value of study halls. I was perplexed: While Norwalk was wrestling with the problem of multiple study halls, districts nationwide had gotten rid of them altogether.

Almost two years later, I asked the BOE’s Curriculum Committee to revisit the study hall issue to see if we had been able to reduce the number of students with multiple study halls. In October 2008, the Deputy Superintendent presented the committee with some disquieting data: Out of roughly 3,200 students in our two comprehensive high schools, 685 students had more than one study hall on one or most days during the week.

The committee was not happy with this information and requested a detailed report as soon as possible. Three months later, we received a second report. It triggered a convoluted discussion, which required some understanding of the different “designs” of our high school schedules, “open ended” first and last periods (apparently seniors, with parental permission, do not have to attend these periods), and the differences between “required” (at Brien McMahon) and “suggested” (at Norwalk High) tutorial centers for study hall students who need extra help.

But through the fog, the bottom line was clear: Not only did many students average two study halls per day, there were some who had three. This came dangerously close to what is often referred to as “warehousing” students. Upset, I made some inquiries in Hartford, only to be told the state does not have guidelines on study halls.

So, while many districts were removing the very possibility of students having even a single study hall per day, our high school students were… well, it wasn’t clear what they were doing because there were no statistics on how many of those students with extra study halls were actually using the tutorial centers. And this was happening as the state of Connecticut, like other states, was increasing the graduation requirements for high school students.

The data in the committee report begged another set of difficult and possibly disturbing questions: Who exactly were these students with multiple study halls? Were there patterns based on race, nationality, special needs, or income? And what kind of correlation was there.

Unfortunately, soon after the January Curriculum Committee meeting, I had to resign from the BOE for health reasons. I do not know the current status of our study hall situation. But perhaps academic “rigor,” however the Superintendent defines it, is only a small part of the SAT problem. Students cannot receive rigorous or any other type of instruction if they are not in classrooms taking courses.