Year-round schools take a traditional school calendar and reorganize days to create multiple shorter breaks rather than a few extended breaks. They have been around since the early 1900’s and have steadily grown since around 1985. Currently, there are over 3,000 schools in the United States on a year-round calendar (Skinner 2). These schools can operate on a single or multi-track system. The system could be a 45-15, 60-20, or 90-30 day track. The sets of numbers correspond to the amount of days in school and then amount of days off (Walker 2). For example, the 45-15 would be 9 weeks of school with a 3 week break in between each quarter. The two pie graphs provide an example of a traditional versus what would be a 45-15 track. A student on single track will be with all of the other students at all times. However with a multi-track schedule, groups of students go to school at different times of the year so that all of the students are not in school at once.
Scheduling of this type brings up many issues. Although it can help with overcrowded schools, a year-round schedule limits activities both in and outside of school. In a multitrack program, school and extracurricular activities would not line up and would have to be specifically scheduled or more likely be held multiple times for different tracks. A year-round schedule also prevents an extended summer vacation. A shortened summer eliminates the ability to have a summer job or any other type of long term event over the summer like summer camps. Multi-track programs have scheduling issues with both students and teachers. If not given a specific room, teachers will have to move classrooms for each class and may have to move out of the room when not on their specific track. Students may be placed on different tracks than their siblings creating an issue among family agendas (Walker 3). At different levels students could change tracks, leaving one sibling going to school at a different time then the other.
Along with scheduling, cost is a major issue involved with the implementation of year-round schools for both the school and academics. Benefits of this type of program are savings from adding classroom space and no need for buying extra materials for overcrowded schools. However, this schedule will require the facility to provide for students during more months of the calendar year. Increased use of air conditioning, storage space, and maintenance will all be needed throughout the year. This may also require “paying more staff on 12-month contracts instead of 9-month contracts, thereby increasing operational costs” (Skinner 6). In relation to academics, Dena Dossett and Marco Munoz performed a study through multiple elementary schools to find results of cost in certain subjects. They found that the “cost effectiveness was inferior in both reading and math for year-round schools as compared to regular calendar schools” and that a one-point gain would be roughly $8 more in reading achievement and $14 more in math achievement for year-round schools compared to traditional (Dossett 13). The year-round program ended up being more expensive in relation to academic achievement.
Year-round schooling is probably most tempting because it could possibly reduce loss of information over the summer. Although this may sound promising, studies performed to find this information have been inconclusive on the benefits. Paul von Hippel, a sociologist at Ohio State University, stated “year-round schools don't really solve the problem of the summer learning setback – they simply spread it out across the year,” after his study on this concept. He found that students from both year-round and traditional schools learned the same information. They found that although students in year-round schools learned more over the summer, they learned less than traditional over the rest of the year, making them equal in achievement (Grabmeier n.pag.). So maybe this type of scheduling is not the only option. In their report and study on year-round education, Dossett and Munoz acknowledge the need for bettering academic success, but believe “factors such as teacher, school, and parent variables are critical elements to understand the impact of determined programs on student achievement.” They think that a rearrangement of the school calendar is not the best answer to the question, stating that it is “not the unique factor that explains educational achievement” (Dossett 15). Whether scheduling of school days is an important factor in the argument, it is not the only one. In a deeper look at the situation there is a path showing that emphasis should be placed on the enrichment of education and learning rather than time. The schools should be using time “in a new and better ways to make it a factor supporting learning and not a boundary that limits it” (Dossett 5). Instead of rearranging schedules to make education better, we should make education better in the time we currently have.
In a world with a society that is constantly progressing, education needs to be continuously developing. A solution for a better education is necessary. Although year-round education looks promising, it does have many drawbacks. It helps with overcrowded schools and might reduce loss in academic retention, but it still creates issues with scheduling and budget. It may not be the best choice when it comes to elevating academics. Even though it could prove to be another step toward better schools, our focus should be on the quality of education before anything else.
Works Cited
Dossett, Dena, and Marco Munoz. "Year-Round Education in a Reform Environment: The Impact on Student Achievement and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis." U.S. Department of Education (2000): 1-16. ERIC. Print.
Grabmeier, Jeff. “Year-Round Schools Don’t Boost Learning, Study Finds.” ResearchNews. The Ohio State University. 11 Aug 2007. Web.
Skinner, Rebecca R. “Year-Round Schools: In Brief.” Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress. 9 June 2014: 1-6.
Print.
Walker, Karen. "Year-Round School. Research Brief." Education Partnerships, Inc. (2009): 1-4. Print.