Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?
Around the world, American schools' long summer break is viewed as an anomaly, and the long summer seems to be getting shorter. While most American primary and secondary schools used to start after Labor Day, more and more of them now open sometime in August (and that's not counting the ones that have gone to a year-round schedule). Some of my younger relatives started a new school year last week (in Indiana), while Baltimore schools start later this month. Both Seattle and Portland's kids have until after Labor Day (with start dates of the 3rd and 4th of September, respectively). The 4th is also the start date for students in New York City's public schools, the country's largest district. Colleges more often start in September, but some get a jump start in August, especially with required seminars or orientation programs for new students. Whether you're in school, out of school, or back in school by proxy (packing lunches or paying tuition), what time does (or did) your school-year start? Would you prefer that your local public schools run all year round, if they're of the long-summer variety? (And conversely, if your local schools give short shrift to summer, whether that's in the U.S. or anywhere else, do you think that's a good idea?)
Kids should have at least a couple of months out of the year when they can just not worry about their studies and have fun and BE KIDS.
Sure. Give them 2-3 weeks a season. 3 months off in the summer currently means that they spend the first month back getting back into the swing of schooling and relearning some of what they've forgotten.
I don't read AC A human right
american education either sucks or is very good (depending on where you live). I used to live in cupertino and the rent was crazy and its now TOTALLY crazy (my previous LL wanted to raise the rent $400 more each month because, well, she thinks she can; and the stupid parents who think their snowflakes NEED the local school system are willing to pay thru the nose). people move away from areas just to get away from bad (or normal) school systems.
if you come from another country and raise kids you, it seems you care a lot about school and will do anything to get your snowflakes into 'the best schools'; but americans seem to care very little, push their kids into sports more than academics and the rest of the world is overcoming us in how educated the kids will be.
given all that, just to stay competitive, I'd say yes, have school all year round. a 2 week break here and there would help allow for vacations and a few 2 week breaks instead of a long summer break makes much more sense to me, anyway.
most parents hate having their crotchfruits hanging around the house all summer, anyway. when I was growing up, we went off to camp during the summer (even if only day-camp). so that's another reason to have school all year round; it will save money for parents who don't want to have to pay for summer camps and things like that.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
american education either sucks or is very good (depending on where you live).
A grand majority of it sucks. And, from what I've seen, people who think their schools are good usually just don't know what a good education even looks like to begin with, though that's not always the case.
given all that, just to stay competitive
Competitive? At what? Education isn't about getting jobs or any other such nonsense; it's about furthering people's understanding of the universe. Schools shouldn't be job training, unless they're trade schools.
I dropped out of public school, and I dropped out for a damn good reason; it was awful. More of it would have only made me despise it even more. Fortunately, I got into a good state university and saw what education was supposed to be like.
First off, there would be no need to change the compensation. Teacher are currently contracted and paid to teach for nine months out of the year. Since year round schools also only hold classes for nine months out of the year, the amount of time spent teaching is the same and the contracts require no major changes.
Second, I and many of the teachers that I have worked with *really* like the year round schedule. I can't speak for every teacher, and there are certainly a lot of teacher that prefer the traditional schedule, but I find the year round schedule to give me more useful freetime. On the one hand, I can more efficiently plan for shorter periods of time (I can make plans and have a chance of getting to them before I have completely forgotten what I was thinking---late September to mid December is a much easier period of time to plan for than mid August to mid December). On the other hand the year round schedule means that I am off when other people are still in school (and since year round schedules can vary quite a lot, even if everyone were year round, I would still be off at a different time from many people), which means that I can get into tourist attractions (Yosemite or Disneyland or whatever you prefer) without having to fight massive crowds. My experience with working in year round schools has been much better than my experience in traditional schools.
None of this, of course, takes away from the argument that teachers ought to be paid more (which I think they should). I just don't think that a year round schedule makes much difference in that debate.
Rhapsody in Numbers
In North Carolina, USA, There was a surprising opponent to year-round schooling. It was the tourism industry.
I mean, jeez! You only get to be a kid once. Let them enjoy those summer vacations. When I think back to my childhood, my fondest memories are during those summer vacations! Why the heck should we take that away from our future generations?
They don't have to eliminate vacations to have year-round schooling.
What they should do is FIRST give students a 10-hour schoolday, just like office workers have; so instead of getting out at 2pm, students start at 7am and school lets out at 5pm, with a 1hour break/lunch.
Next they should give students a 2 week vacation every 4 months.
And reduce the number of schooldays from 5 to 4, so students have Wednesday off for self-study and go to school Mon, Tue, Thu, and Friday.
I was an elected school board member in the 1980s. During that time, I would attend the annual California School Boards Association conferences.
One year, I heard an interesting presentation on a form of year-round schooling. The presenter described a calendar in which regular classes would meet for 9 weeks followed by a 3-week break, making a four-quarter school year. The 3-week break would not be a break for all students. He pointed out that 9 months of failure could not be corrected in only 6 weeks of summer school, a ratio of 6.5 to 1. Instead, students not meeting expected academic performance would have to attend remedial classes during the 3-week break, a ratio of 3 to 1.
It was already a noticeable problem in our schools that students would sometime miss classes because their parents took them on a skiing trip in the winter, to visit family in the spring, or to see fall color. As a member of the 2005-2006 County Grand Jury, I learned that this problem had grown worse county-wide in the 15 years after I left the school board. This radical calendar would provide 3 weeks off for those trips for students who were performing well in class.
This calendar would also provide an extra 2 weeks around Christmas and New Year, when even remedial students and their teachers would be off. It would provide for all the holidays the state Legislature mandates on public schools. Yet it would still involve the full 182 days of instruction annually that the Legislature also mandates. By shifting teacher in-service days to the 3-week breaks, students would actually be learning during all 182 days.
Of course, there would be increased costs for the remedial instruction and for the in-service days. That likely dooms this concept since too many members of the state Legislature think cutting taxes is the most important thing they can do, more important than educating our children, repairing our roads, assuring a supply of water, or anything else.
Research concluded that poor kids, where parents usually don't spend as much 'meaningful' time with the children, because they're busy working three jobs to get food on the table, actually lose knowledge (math, reading comprehension) during summer. Blue collar/middle class children usually were leveled whereas middle class/rich kids actually got a bit smarter during summer. (http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Summer_Learning_Loss/).
So for some children there may certainly be a benefit to less vacation.
With the three months off being all in one chunk over the summer, many teachers I know end up getting a summer job, waiting tables or cleaning houseboats or whatever. If you were to split that time up into a couple week chunks throughout the year it would pretty much take away that option.
Yes, farming was a big reason.
Summer cooling is expensive. Teachers should be paid more if they work more. Nobody would work 2 more months per year at the same pay. (Teachers end and start at different dates than the students.)
I learned a great deal during the summer vacation. Don't let school interfere any further with your child's education!
More children need to be allowed to FAIL... and spend their summer saving face so they can be with their peers again.
Not that anything matters when you have a system geared for rote learning to pass standardized multiple guess exams; ignoring all the less quantifiable education or things not deemed important enough to regiment into a rigid exam system.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news