The traditional school calendar was developed primarily
to serve the needs of farmers who needed the help of their
children during the summer. Now however, the conventional
school year is being challenged with the possibility of year
round schooling, which, although implemented in some districts,
has been at the core of a heated and lengthy debate..
The reason why this dispute has hit so many nerves is perhaps
because the changes personally affect so many people—a
long-established schedule is being questioned—therefore,
a comfort zone is disrupted.
According to advocates of the year round school system,
the need for three months off in the summer is losing ground.
Much of the information learned during the school year is
lost during the three-month hiatus and subsequently; the
beginning of each year is wasted on review. Moreover, supporters
claim that class sizes are reduced as schools with year-round
schedules are put on a multi-track program (meaning, two
thirds of the students are in school while one third are
on break). Not only does this prevent overcrowding within
the schools, but in some cases, alleviates the need to build
more schools. In a typical year-round scenario, students
start school at the beginning of August, and have nine-week
sessions and three-week vacation breaks, as well as five
weeks off in the summer. The dates vary for each track so
not all the students in a school are attending at once.
However, studies conducted on year-round schooling suggest
that maximum learning loss occurs in the first two to three
weeks away from school, thus mainly affecting the short-term
memory. With year-round schooling’s multiple three-week
breaks throughout the year, learning loss is actually the
same or greater than loss with the traditional three-month
summer. Furthermore, studies done on the year-round calendar
time and again conclude no significant difference in academic
achievement.
Probably the greatest evidence against the year-round schooling schedule is
that “Since 1980, 95 percent of all the schools trying year-round education
have gone back to a traditional calendar,” according to Don Patterson,
a school board member in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Reasons for this cited
by school districts include: lack of parental support due to family and community
disruption, the high cost of implementation, and lack of improvement in student
achievement.
If this program, according to National Association for Year-Round Education
(NAYRE) is so beneficial to students, why then is there such a lack of parental
support? Is it simply the agenda upheaval, or is there something more?
Many parents claim that during the three-week intersessions, their children
become latchkey kids—as they are unable to participate in summer camps
or other educational programs that they could otherwise benefit from. Having
the month of February off for example, may find many children alone at home.
High school students are also unable to obtain summer employment, as many employers
will not hire for such short periods, and it has been proven that summer employment
is a crucial part of obtaining valuable life and economic lessons for many
teenagers.
Additionally, summer school classes are no longer offered, but are instead
replaced by intersession courses, which do not fall under curriculum defined
by the board and are often taught by uncertified teachers and, unlike summer
school, the parents must pay for these classes. There is also an economic
loss for the teachers, as they cannot opt to supplement their income by teaching
summer school. Extracurricular activities also suffer as scheduling becomes
compromised or impossible.
The NAYRE has also been under fire for its fierce campaign of advocacy research
and findings that critics find dubious. Systems analyst Robert Rosenfield
conducted research, which stemmed from his concern with altered data gathered
by NAYRE. He subsequently claimed in his 1994 paper, “Each study presented
in the NAYRE review has either been incompletely characterized, or otherwise
contradicted by other studies within the same state or district.”
During Charlie Nayor’s research for the BCTF, he found that “In
the Winters (1994) paper, for example, a review of recent studies only included
studies supplied by the NAYRE and failed to conduct even the most basic of
literature searches. Such a search would have uncovered a number of studies
less favourable to the NAYRE case that educational achievement is increased
through year round education.”
However, Dr. Charles Ballinger, the NAYRE Executive Director
Emeritus responds by asking a question that may stir the
critical thinker in us all:
“ If year-round education were the traditional school calendar, and had
been so for 100 years or more, and if someone came along to suggest a "new" calendar
wherein school students were to be educated for only nine months each year, with
another three months free from organized instruction, would the American public
allow, or even consider, such a calendar?”
<< top >
|
