The amount of instruction students receive has long been viewed as a foundational educational resource. This article presents an analysis of the time students spend in elementary English language arts (ELA) and mathematics instruction. In mathematics, the average student received about 140 hr of instruction, but students in the top sixth of classrooms in this distribution can expect to receive between 80 and 160 hr more instruction over the school year than students assigned to the bottom sixth of classrooms. We found similar magnitudes of variation in ELA. Although most of the variation was due to differences among classrooms, there was also substantial variation among schools. Some variation in instructional time is expected and probably favorable. However, we argue that the large variation demonstrated by these results represent substantial inequity in students’ opportunity to learn ELA and mathematics.
AmadioM. (1997). The use of time in the classroom. Educational Innovation and Information, 92, 1-8.
2.
BallD.CamburnE.CorrentiR.PhelpsG.WallaceR. (1999). New tools for research on instruction: A web-based teacher log (Working paper). Seattle: Center for Teaching Policy, University of Washington.
3.
BenavotA. (2004). A global study of intended instructional time and official school curricula, 1980-2000.Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005, The Quality Imperative, UNESCO, Paris, France.
4.
BerlinerD. C. (1990). What’s all this fuss about instructional time? In Ben-PeretzM.RainerB. (Eds.), The nature of time in schools (pp. 3-35). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
5.
BorgW. R. (1980). Time and school learning. In DenhamC.LiebermanA. (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 33-63). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
6.
BrophyJ.GoodT. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York, NY: Macmillan.
CamburnE.BarnesC. A. (2004). Assessing the validity of a language arts instruction log through triangulation. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 25.
9.
CamburnM.HanS. W. (2005). Validating measures of instruction based on annual surveys. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
10.
CarrollJ. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.
11.
CarrollJ. B. (1989). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18, 26-31.
12.
CoreyD.PhelpsG.DemonteJ.HarrisonD.BallD. L. (2011). Explaining variation in instructional time: An application of quantile regression. In press.
13.
FisherC. W.BerlinerD. C. (Eds.). (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York, NY: Longman.
14.
GettingerM. (1984). Individual differences in time needed for learning: A review of the literature. Educational Psychologist, 19, 15-29.
15.
HiebertJ.GallimoreR.GarnierH.GivvinK. B.HollingsworthH.JacobsJ.. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. (No. NCES 2003-013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
16.
HillH.RowanB.BallD. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371-406.
17.
HuyvaertS. H. (1998). Time is of the essence: Learning in schools. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
18.
KnappM. S. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19.
MannC. H. (1928). How schools use their time: Time allotment practice in 444 cities. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
20.
MillerR. T.MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2008). Do teacher absences impact student achievement? Longitudinal evidence from one urban school district. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 30, 181-200.
21.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time. Washington, DC: Author.
22.
No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law No. 107-110 (2001).
23.
PorterA. C. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9-15.
24.
PorterA. C.FlodenR. E.FreemanD. J.SchmidtW. H.SchwilleJ. R. (1986). Content determinants (Research Series No. 179). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
25.
PurkeyS. C.SmithM. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452.
26.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
SchmidtW. H.McKnightC. C.JakwerthP. M.CoganL. S.RaizenS. A.HouangR. T.. . . BrittonE. D. (1998). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at United States mathematics and science education. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
28.
StallingsJ. A. (1980). Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task. Education Researcher, 9(11), 11-16.
29.
StevensonH. W.StiglerJ. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
30.
StiglerJ. W.StevensonH. W. (1991). How Asian teacher polish each lesson to perfection. American Educator, 15(1), 1-12, 43-47.
31.
StiglerJ. W.GonzalesP.KawankaT.KnollS.SerranoA. (1999). The TIMMS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(2), 109-112.
32.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2004). Education for all: The quality imperative (Global Monitoring Report 2005). Paris, France: Author.
33.
WalbergH. J. (1986). Syntheses of research on teaching. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 214-239). New York, NY: Macmillan.
34.
WileyD. E. (1976). Another day, another hour: Quantity of schooling, a potent path for policy. In SewellW. H.HauserR. M.FeathermanD. L. (Eds.), Schooling and achievement in American society. (pp. 225-267). New York, NY: Academic Press.
35.
WileyD. E.HarnischfegerA. (1974). Explosion of a myth: Quantity of schooling and exposure to instruction, major educational vehicles. Educational Researcher, 3(4), 7-12.
36.
World Bank. (1990). Primary education: A World Bank policy paper. Washington, DC: Author].
