<p>Interesting opinion piece on cnn.com today about the need for year-round schooling.</p>
<p>We</a> need year-round school to compete globally - CNN.com</p>
<p>Russia has 3 full months for summer and nobody dares tell that the ability of Russian students is weaker than the one of US studens in math.</p>
<p>No
There should be more to childhood than the school treadmill. Time to pursue other things or just enjoy a warm summer day without somebody’s expectations being forced on you.</p>
<p>In the article, he says we need to think outside the box. Summer is when students have the chance to play outside the box.</p>
<p>My un-PC answer to this is that we need year-round school for poor kids but not for rich kids.</p>
<p>^Ha…I’m reading “Outliers” too!</p>
<p>^ I support optional remedy or enrichment classes, field trip activities for every kid. Poor kids may be exempted from paying fees and meals. I don’t support boring mandatory traditional classes.</p>
<p>Not PC as the article actually points out that lower income children lose 3 months of learning over the summer as opposed to the one month upper income children lose.</p>
<p>Many school systems already have “year round school” but in reality they just spread the days out. Studies show there is NO advantage to this system although some schools and parent want to believe it does. The real disadvantage is the constant disruption of starting and stopping school. I know. I have been there, done that. I intensely dislike this style of “year round school.”</p>
<p>Also are we going to teach the same stuff in more days or more content and push ahead?</p>
<p>I’m not opposed to balanced calendar schools. The district “next door” has one and they’ve had a 9 week on, 2 week off calendar with a 6 week summer break. The kids don’t lose as much during 6 weeks as during 9-11 weeks and I personally would have loved the opportunity to take a little trip in October. But alas the parental vote in our town struck balanced calendar down although the geographic breakdown of the vote showed that the more rural and middle class areas supported balanced calendar, while the wealthiest communities did not (citing football schedules, vacations and the fracture of the American family as reasons why not.) </p>
<p>The balanced calendar still has 180 days of school, it’s just structured differently. Were my kids the only ones totally ready to go back with 3 weeks left? And am I the only mom who was counting the days right there with them?</p>
<p>I’m a big fan of serious chill out time in the summer, but it’s also the only time my kids can indulge in areas that they love that don’t (or can’t) get covered during the school year. Luckily we’ve been able to send our kids to some specialty summer programs, but if we hadn’t they wouldn’t have been able to work at that level till college. Maybe a better answer would be if everyone had the opportunity to take part in specialty summer academies (instead of going to the rec center and making potholders) rather than a longer school year with the traditional format.</p>
<p>
Thinking back to my day care days, I would have liked that schedule. (Kinda ruins the swim team season, though. Oh well.)</p>
<p>^^^Yup, they were at a disadvantage for some things like that (as well as the larger district run 1 week arts & creative camps) because they were still in school while all that stuff started, since local calendars weren’t synchronous with theirs.</p>
<p>But I was jealous when they had those 2 weeks off in October :)</p>
<p>The article talks about adding days to the school year, not creating more “balanced” calendars. School isn’t daycare. </p>
<p>Some schools are dropping the “year round” or balanced calendar because it costs too much with little evidence enhanced learning.</p>
<p>Well, he mentioned Finland having 190 days of school (only 10 days more than the U.S.) and they’re first in math & science. So I don’t think it’s about a lot more time in school; it’s about how it’s structured. If our poorest students are losing 3 months each summer, then our teachers are spending the 1st marking period reteaching the last marking period of the year before.</p>
<p>The reality is that my kids (and I’m pretty sure the kids of almost everyone who posts on CC; c’mon we’re involved parents!) probably didn’t even lose the month touted in the article over the summer. Because they were reading for fun, going to the zoo, making art projects. Weekly trips to the library, park, beach and the creative play place were the norm, because I was a SAHM and could do that. That isn’t what happens for a lot of kids; especially for the kids at highest risk for regressing the most over the summer. Technically, it’s not my problem, because they’re not my kids. But it is my problem because we should all be striving to help all students succeed.</p>
<p>Sorry if I struck a nerve with my day care comment, TNmagnolia. I certainly never considered school to be a day care and didn’t mean for my comment to come across like that. I was referring to summer and after school nannies, as well as vacation flexibility.</p>
<p>FYI - my kids attended year-round elementary and middle school, that was the best time for all of us. In essence, there are 4 3-week breaks scattered throughout the year. We went to trips when everyone was still at school at non-peak price. They got the chance to experience the world while we have excellent family time. The best ever.</p>
<p>I totally against stuffing the kids with more academics with the other so-called year-round academic schools. These are kids, they need other things to broaden their lives instead of just books.</p>
<p>DougBetsy
No problem. You did strike a nerve though. When our elementary school converted to the 45 days on, 15 days off calendar I heard a number of comments from parent that they were looking forward to a shorter summer. Because “they didn’t know what they were going to do with their kids anyway.” In reality in just spread their problem throughout the year. </p>
<p>If we’re going to go year round we should do it thoughtfully, not some kind of knee jerk reaction to these constant rankings. In fact I think we would do well to add more days, but again poor teaching is poor teaching. </p>
<p>Someone mentioned “Outliers.” Malcolm Gladwell also wrote an article for the New York Times that talks about the effect of poor teachers. Getting rid of a relatively few poor teachers would have a huge impact.</p>
<p>Taxpayers don’t even want pay for the 180 day year we have now. So how eager are they going to be for paying for another 100 days or so?</p>
<p>We need LESS school, not more. Our non-poverty kids are ranked just below Finland - they are among the best students in the best schools in the world.</p>
<p>For kids in poverty, if school were the answer, they would have done a heck of a lot better a long time ago. Schools are not the answer to poverty. And expecting schools to be the answer to poverty is a dead-end. We know (we really DO know) what works, but it ain’t school, and Americans won’t invest in it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.homeschoolnewslink.com/homeschool/columnists/gatto/lesssch.shtml[/url]”>http://www.homeschoolnewslink.com/homeschool/columnists/gatto/lesssch.shtml</a></p>
<p>I am a teacher and I like the idea of yearlong schools because I would love breaks during non-traditional times. I don’t think that more academics need to be shoved into the year, just have the school days more evenly spread out. I also think all students would benefit from having shorter breaks between academic years because I do believe they will retain more material year to year.</p>
<p>Now, on a similar issue. A friend of mine recently went on an educational tour in China. She visited schools in three different cities. I asked her if her trip alluded to why Chinese students are outdoing American kids. She shared that in the communities she visited students had a free education through 9th grade and that parents had to pay for grades 10-12 if the child is accepted to the higher grades based on an entrance exam. The higher the child scores on the entrance exam the less the parent has to pay for the school. In addition, she was told that children were expected to care for their parents when they were older (50 for mothers, 55 for fathers). The combination of parents wanting their children to be able to one day take care of them and the cost of grades 10-12 seemed to really motivate the parents in making sure their children studied and kept up with their studies. Additionally, teachers were not expected to coach (no sports in school except for inter-mural like activities) or sponsor clubs after school. At night all teachers offered tutoring to students who needed it, but not for free; parents had to pay. Basically the respect for teachers appeared much greater than what is experienced in the US. Teachers were not blamed when students didn’t do well.</p>
<p>I asked her about discipline and special needs students. She said from her classroom observations the students seemed to be as squirrely as typical American students; some talking, some staring into space and some paying attention. (She expected to see students sitting quietly in their desks fully paying attention, and that was not the case.) Although, she learned that when a child gets into serious trouble all the school does is call the parents. The parents come and get the kid and handle the discipline at home, instead of making excuses for their kid like so many parents in America seem to do. When she asked about special needs students all she was told is that they go to a special school. I don’t know what constitutes special needs but they are not in the regular schools. Now, this makes me question what scores are actually being reflected when math and science in America are compared with those in other countries. If our scores reflect all students, including lower level students and Chinese scores only reflect the better students then the scores cannot truly be compared. I actually have read that this is the case within the last year, but I cannot remember where I read that.</p>
<p>I personally think that part of the reason our system isn’t as successful as it could be is lack of parental involvement. We all know that students with involved parents do better, not all of the time, but for the most part. I also think that another reason is our culture’s tendency to point fingers. When students and parents view an education as their responsibility they make it a priority as opposed to those that feel it is the school’s responsibility. I am not saying that schools are blameless, but as a teacher I can always pick out the students with supportive families who value education verses those who do not. (Give me a classroom of kids from stable and supportive families and my test scores will be off of the charts with a lot less effort than a class full of neglected kids whose parents haven’t modeled personal responsibility.) So I guess part of the problem is our American culture. Too many blame others for their failures and expect everyone else to handle things. </p>
<p>Will year round schools fix this? No way.</p>
<p>Although there are more school days per year in some foreign countries, the US already has the highest instructional hours per year (besides Canada) in elementary schools: </p>
<p>[Educational</a> Innovation and Information - Number 096: INSTRUCTIONAL TIME AND TEACHING SUBJECTS DURING THE FIRST FOUR YEARS OF PRIMARY EDUCATION](<a href=“Info Collections – Informative Ideas”>Info Collections – Informative Ideas)</p>
<p>TABLE 1. Average number of class hours during the first four years of primary education(public sector)</p>
<pre><code>1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
</code></pre>
<p>Asia & the Pacific (N=15) 743 750 799 831 3 123<br>
Central Europe and former USSR (N=13) 515 555 586 617 2 273<br>
Latin America & the Caribbean (N=21) 755 755 769 769 3 048<br>
Middle East & North Africa (N=16) 742 742 770 808 3 062<br>
Sub-Saharan Africa (N=16) 781 788 836 848 3 253<br>
Western Europe (N=21) 736 748 781 813 3 078<br>
All systems (N=102) 721 730 764 786 3 001<br>
Canada average (N=7) 922 922 922 922 3 688<br>
USA average (N=22) 886 886 886 923 3 581 (***)<br>
Average developing (N=66) 754 756 790 809 3 108<br>
Average developed (N=38) 674 695 725 755 2 849<br>
Western Europe and North America average (N=50) 828 833 847 876 3 384</p>