Is a Longer School Year Coming?

Written by on
A proposal at the Capitol aims to increase required instructional time for students across Oklahoma, though it does so through an indirect approach.
 
The bill—HB 3151—does not simply add more instructional days to the calendar. Instead, it changes what qualifies as instructional time. In Oklahoma, schools must provide a minimum of 1,086 hours of instruction per year. While the total instructional hours are fixed, districts can distribute those hours across a varying number of school days, with a minimum requirement of 166 days per year.
 
Under Oklahoma law, “instructional time” is defined as actual classroom instruction, excluding things like lunch, recess, and school assemblies. However, districts may count up to 30 hours of professional development and meetings, along with 12 hours of parent-teacher conferences, toward the state’s 1,086-hour requirement. At first glance, this may seem confusing: Why count staff development and parent-teacher conferences toward instructional hours?

Why count staff development and parent-teacher conferences toward instructional hours?

The reason is to ensure schools are investing quality time in teacher development, staff training, and parent engagement. By allowing these hours to count toward total instructional time, districts do not have to choose between meeting instructional requirements and supporting these efforts; they are given ample time to do both. The state is incentivizing districts to prioritize staff development and community engagement, both of which are necessary for student success.
 
HB 3151 expands the school calendar—not by adding days—but by eliminating the option for districts to count up to 30 hours of professional development and 12 hours of parent-teacher conferences toward total instruction time. The original structure was designed to protect the time needed to do these things well; eliminating the option could unintentionally push districts to reduce staff development, shorten parent-teacher conferences, or eliminate some items altogether.
Supporters of the bill contend that the goal is to increase the amount of time students spend in the classroom. They argue that more instructional time is strongly correlated with higher academic outcomes.  During the committee hearing, lawmakers expressed concerns that Oklahoma students may not be spending as much time in school as students in neighboring states.
 
To be clear, research demonstrates that both the quantity and quality of classroom instruction matter. Where it becomes interesting is understanding how the two intersect. The research overwhelmingly shows that more instructional time with a highly qualified teacher is correlated with superior academic outcomes, which is not surprising. The research becomes a bit muddier when it attempts to isolate quantity and quality and evaluate their impacts independently.
 
As for the question about how much time Oklahoma students spend in class, check out our article, “Oklahoma vs. Texas: Who Goes to School More.”

Now, returning to the bill at hand, we must address two separate policy concerns: the bill’s stated intent and its actual policy change. The bill’s stated intent is to add instructional time to the calendar to improve academic outcomes.The policy change, however, alters the state’s incentive structure for districts regarding staff development and parent-teacher conferences. These concerns raise two distinct policy questions: 

  • How much instructional time is best for students?
  • How, if at all, should the state incentivize staff development and parent-teacher conferences?

The current discussion around HB 3151 seems to conflate these two concerns.

Associated costs were another issue discussed at length during the committee hearing. Increasing instructional time — whether by adding hours or reclassifying existing time — could raise expenses for transportation, utilities, and staffing.

we must address two separate policy concerns: the bill’s stated intent and its actual policy change.

HB 3151, however, is far from complete. During POE’s meeting this week with the bill’s author, he explained that the bill is still evolving and far from final. Further, he emphasized the need for dialogue and carefully listened to the questions and concerns expressed by POE members.
 
In the coming weeks, POE’s team will continue to monitor the bill and keep an open line of communication with the author. We will also continue to send out updates on any bill developments. Please watch for our upcoming member survey on HB 3151. In the meantime, we encourage members to contact their legislators directly with any questions or concerns about the bill. Please visit our Action Center to connect with your state representative.
 
If you are not yet signed up for POE Action Alerts, please text “OklaEd” to 50457.
 

Helpful References

Andersen, S. C., Humlum, M. K., & Nandrup, A. B. (2016). Increasing instruction time in school does increase learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7481–7484. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516686113

Kidron, Y., & Lindsay, J. (2014, July). The effects of increased learning time on student academic and nonacademic outcomes: Findings from a meta-analytic review. REL Appalachia, American Institutes for Research.

Kraft, M. A., & Novicoff, S. (2024). Time in school: A conceptual framework, synthesis of the causal research, and empirical exploration (EdWorkingPaper No. 22-653). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/1xxp-9c79

Wedel, K. (2021). Instruction time and student achievement: The moderating role of teacher qualifications (ifo Working Paper No. 344). ifo Institute – Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.