c
- Abstract
By Richard L. Worsnop
- Do they improve academic performance?
For most of the nation's 44 million school-children, summer vacations begin in June. However, more than 1.7 million students will remain in classes a few weeks longer and get a shorter vacation break. They attend schools with "year-round education" (YRE) programs designed to improve academic achievement and/or ease overcrowding. YRE programs rearrange the school schedule into several instructional time blocks separated by shorter and more frequent vacation breaks. In most YRE schedules, the number of days in the school year remains the same as in traditional calendars. Supporters claim, among other things, that YRE reduces learning loss during the usual 10-12 week summer hiatus. Opponents say that time off is itself part of the learning and maturing process, and that YRE disrupts family activities.
- Overview
As June edges closer, the countdown to summer vacation begins formillions of schoolchildren across
the nation. For a small but growing number, however, vacations will start later and end sooner. They
attend schools that have scrapped the familiar September-to-June schedule in favor of "year-round
education" (YRE).
Despite the off-putting name, YRE does not actually require pupils to attend school all year. It is, rather,
a catch-all term for programs that rearrange the traditional school calendar into several instructional
time blocks, separated by shorter and more frequent vacation breaks. In most YRE arrangements,
the number of days in the school year is the same as in the September-to-June model.
Year-round schooling is attracting interest at a time of mounting dissatisfaction with the state of U.S.
elementary and secondary education. Studies have repeatedly shown that American high school
students score well below students from other advanced countries in core academic subjects such
as mathematics and history. These countries typically require longer instructional days - and more
of them - than most American schools, where the eight-hour-per-day, 180- day-a-year model is
standard.
To many U.S. fans of YRE, the arithmetic is as easy as two and two: To make U.S. students more
competitive, school officials must lengthen the school year.
Nonetheless, "America's attachment to the 180-day school year is still strong," observed Michael J.
Barrett, a Massachusetts attorney who often writes on public policy issues. "In a world already reeling
from future shock, the notion of extending the year seems punitive, an assault on the idea of summer
itself. It raises the specter of joyless cramming. It implies that American parents have somehow failed
their children." [1]
That negative attitude is shared by many parents and educators and helps to explain why YRE now
occupies only a tiny niche in American primary and secondary education. According to the National
Association for Year-Round Education (NAYRE), 2,368 public schools in 37 states currently operate
on some sort of year-round schedule. More than 1.7 million students were enrolled in such schools
in the 1995-96 academic year, up from 350,000 students a decade ago. By comparison, more than
42 million students attend some 83,000 public schools nationwide that follow the traditional school
calendar, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Year-round schools tend to be clustered in certain regions and states. Charles Ballinger, NAYRE's
executive director, notes that "83 percent of our year-round schools currently are west of the Mississippi,"
whereas Eastern schools have been "far more resistant to change."
In fact, 76 percent of the YRE schools are concentrated in just three states - California, Florida and
Texas. That's hardly surprising, since all three have experienced robust population growth in recent
decades, which has caused severe school overcrowding.
Under such trying circumstances, financially squeezed school boards find one form of year-round
education - the so-called "multi- track" schedule - almost irresistibly appealing. A multi-track schedule
makes fuller use of existing facilities, thus eliminating or postponing the need to build additional
classrooms.
The word "track," in the world of YRE, does not connote the separation of students into groups ranked
by academic ability - a once popular practice that has fallen out of favor. [2] Rather, a track refers to one
or more equally sized groups of students attending the same school on staggered schedules. At any
given time, one of the groups is "off-track" - that is, on vacation - while the others are attending class
regularly. The net effect of such arrangements is to substantially increase the number of students the
school can accommodate.
"Implementing a four-track, year-round calendar extends the capacity of a school by 33 percent,"
according to NAYRE. "[A] school with [a normal] capacity of 750 students can accommodate 1,000
students, as only three tracks of [250] students [each] would be in school at the same time. There
would always be one track on vacation every day of the school year. At no time will there ever be more
than 750 students on campus."
By the same token, a three-track program allows a school to enroll up to 50 percent more students
than its designed capacity, while a five-track schedule permits a 25 percent enrollment increase.
"Every multi-track calendar, like most everything else in life, has its pluses and minuses," says
Ballinger. "Each community has to choose which calendar makes sense for it."
YRE advocates contend that shorter, more frequent vacations help minimize the learning loss that
often occurs during the 10-week summer break served up by a traditional school calendar. YRE critics
question whether any such improvement actually occurs.
Single- and multi-track programs are by no means the only YRE choices available to a community. A few
schools have expanded the academic year to 240 instructional days - about the same number as in
German and Japanese schools. That's seven days shy of 247 days, which is the maximum number
of school days a school could use, not counting weekends and holidays, if it wanted to make the calendar
as long as possible.
Another YRE possibility is the double-session (sometimes called two-track) approach, in which students
attend school in two shifts, each somewhat shorter than a traditional school day. Doubling up in this
fashion typically entails lengthening the school year to approximately 225 days to meet minimum state
requirements for total instruction time. Parents and students generally dislike double- session schooling,
since the first shift has to arrive at school very early in the morning, while the second one must remain
until early evening.
In recent years, the debate over year-round education has broadened to embrace more fundamental
questions about the use of educational time. Block scheduling, long utilized in higher education, varies
the length of class periods to accommodate the particular needs of the subject being taught. For instance,
some science classes might be twice the usual length so that students can test the knowledge gained
from a lecture in a laboratory session held immediately afterward.
"Students don't have to stop and start so often," says John Lammel, director of high school services at
the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). "Reducing the number of classes
per school day saves time."
Indeed, a widely noted report issued in 1994 by the congressionally appointed National Education
Commission on Time and Learning stressed the need for more imaginative ways of scheduling and
presenting material. "We should not forget that students are like adults in many ways," the panel asserted.
"Some are able to focus intensely on demanding materials for long periods; others need more
frequent breaks. Many students, like many adults, learn best by reading; some learn best by listening;
others, by doing, or even by talking amongst themselves. Offering more frequent breaks, providing
more opportunities for hands-on learning, encouraging group work - these techniques and others can
parole some of the students who today feel most confined by the school's rigid time demands."
Since there is wide agreement that a well-educated populace is the key to assuring a prosperous future,
debate on year-round schooling and related issues seems likely to continue. These are some of the
key issues being discussed:
- Does year-round schooling improve academic performance?
The acid test for year-round schooling, supporters and opponents agree, is whether it raises the
academic achievement of students exposed to it. Many would agree with public policy expert Barrett
that "additional time by itself does not guarantee successful learning."
In Barrett's opinion, "More is not necessarily better, because other factors come into play, ranging from
the quality of the teacher to the quality of the textbooks to the health of the student. Second, time is a
commodity that comes in different sizes. The length of the school year, the length of the school week,
the length of the school day, the number of minutes diverted to 'classroom management' and lost to
instruction, the number of minutes allocated to a particular subject, the amount of homework, the rate
of pupil attendance and absenteeism - these blocks of time interrelate, and the importance of any one
of them cannot be analyzed without considering its impact on the others." [6]
Notwithstanding these complexities, opinion on the academic effectiveness of year-round education
tends to be sharply divided. Enriqueta Chavez, a counselor at Eastlake High School in San Diego, has
sent three of her children through area YRE schools and is enthusiastic about the results. "Attendance
has increased in most of the schools on year-round schedules," she reports, "and test scores have
improved, too."
The intersession vacation periods benefit both students and teachers, adds Chavez. "During those
three-week breaks, students have a choice. They can continue coming to school on a half-day basis,
pick up a class for credit or attend some enrichment courses." She estimates that "close to half of
the students come back to class during the intersessions."
Similarly, if teachers "want to work and make a little extra money during the intersessions, they can.
If they don't want to, they can go on vacation. And we have found that three or four weeks is just about
long enough for a break. By then, the kids are pretty bored and really want to come back to school."
Norman R. Brekke, former superintendent of the Oxnard (Calif.) Elementary School District, also
strongly supports YRE. [7] Oxnard schools covering grades K-8 switched from a traditional to a year-
round schedule in 1976 and are still on it. After the shift, "Our state test scores clearly indicated progress
in academic achievement," says Brekke. "We exceeded the statewide average in test-score improvement."
Brekke acknowledges that "Oxnard was never, overall, at the statewide average," and still is not. That's
because the local population "was heavily minority, with limited facility in English." Nonetheless, "the
amount of test-score growth from one year to the next was greater in Oxnard than in similar schools
elsewhere in California. And when our local newspapers pointed that out, support for the year-round
program rose."
Critics of YRE challenge claims that it improves the educational performance of students and teachers.
Heather Tepe, a homemaker in Columbia, Md., who helped defeat a proposed year-round education
program for Howard County schools, contends that a traditional schedule gives children the freedom
they need "to explore other opportunities and other interests."
In her opinion, kids already "are spending so much time in scheduled activities - whether it's in day
care, after-school programs, or school itself - that they're stressed out and over- regimented. They
need some down time - time to be kids."
Don Patterson, a member of the Albuquerque, N.M., school board, takes the position that YRE is one
of "a lot of gimmicks in education that are reintroduced every 20 or 25 years." He likens the process to
"infatuation with change for change's sake" or "reinvention of the flat tire."
In Albuquerque, says Patterson, "we had more absenteeism among kids on year-round schedules
than among kids on traditional schedules. Also, the grade-repetition rate among kids on year-round
schedules was twice that of kids on traditional schedules. I think that came about because year-round
use of school buildings leaves no opportunity to operate summer remediation programs."
Patterson also scoffs at claims that intersession breaks create openings for enrichment courses.
"When you have a multi-track schedule, you have no space for enrichment programs," he says.
"Overcrowding is why a school goes to multi-track in the first place."
In addition, argues Patterson, YRE erodes the morale of teachers and school administrators. Public
education "is taxing, it's hard work," he says. "The traditional summer vacation is like when an actor
goes on hiatus between roles. It gives the individual time to recharge internal batteries. The short
breaks under a year-round schedule never quite do that."
Perhaps the most contentious YRE issue of all is the so-called "summer effect," or the partial learning
loss that many students experience during a traditional summer vacation. YRE enthusiasts contend that
shorter, more frequent breaks help students retain more of what they have learned. But many educators
either disagree or say that such claims are unproven and possibly unprovable.
A forthcoming review of 39 studies on the effect of a traditional summer vacation on achievement test
scores found that scores did in fact generally decline. "The effect of summer break was more detrimental
for math than for reading and most detrimental for math computation and spelling," the researchers
concluded. "Also, middle- class students appeared to gain on grade level equivalent reading tests over
summer while lower-class students lost on them." Middle- class students, the researchers suggested,
may have had more opportunities to hone their academic skills during the long summer break than did
lower-class students. [8]
Sandy Hawkins of Sandy, Utah, a past president of NAYRE, has two children who performed equally
well in a YRE elementary school and a traditional-calendar secondary school. But she knows of parents
in her area who had to hire tutors for their children at the beginning of each new traditional school year.
These parents were delighted to find that tutoring wasn't needed under a year-round schedule, "because
the children weren't away from the learning environment as long."
Patterson, on the other hand, feels it's "ridiculous" to assert that shorter vacations enhance knowledge
retention. "The argument I use," he says, "is that if I know your name, and I remember it tomorrow, then
I'm going to remember your name for a month or two. You know, long-term. Short-term memory loss
is very acute. Studies show that the only discernible summer loss occurs in the first two or three weeks.
So by introducing all these multiple breaks, all you're doing is maximizing forgetting."
Multiple breaks can be detrimental in other ways as well, Patterson believes. As a scheduled school
break approaches, students "lose focus in anticipation of having time off from school. Then, when they
return to class, they need additional time to reacclimate themselves to the learning environment.
Consequently, short breaks probably do more harm than good."
Traditional summer-school programs, operated for students who need to make up credits lost through
absence or failure, obviously do not lend themselves well to a year-round schedule, critics say. YRE
supporters say students in need of remediation can receive help during the short intersession breaks.
But since all classrooms are in use at all times under many YRE programs, administrators would have
to lease outside space, incurring additional costs for the school district. [9]
"It could be true" that a year-round schedule enhances knowledge retention, says Barbara Heyns,
a sociology professor at New York University, but "there's no good evidence" to support that conclusion.
"When people test kids, they aren't sure whether they are assessing retention or learning," she says.
"Generally, it's a bit of both. The problem is that the tests are not set up to evaluate time periods -
what kids learn in a specific unit of time. Teachers tend to have very fixed opinions about this, but
I really don't see much supporting evidence."
Heyns' views accord with one of the conclusions of a 1990 survey of year-round schooling by Phi Delta
Kappa, the honorary education fraternity. "Despite the claims that long summer vacations lead to
lessened achievement, year-round schools are not associated with great leaps in academic achievement,
" the group reported. "Standardized testing shows that year-round programs have little impact on scores
one way or another. If a district is looking to show major increases in standardized tests, year-round
schools are not the answer." [10]
For homemaker Tepe, the knowledge-retention debate focuses on the wrong issue. "If children are
losing what they have learned over 10 weeks or three weeks," she says, "it indicates to me that the
material wasn't taught correctly in the first place."
- Is year-round education more cost-effective than the traditional model?
For many school administrators, the most persuasive argument in favor of YRE is that it offers a
cost-effective way of relieving classroom overcrowding. Instead of renting commercial space or
portable classrooms - or constructing new schools - administrators can enlarge the capacity of
existing facilities by converting them to year-round operation.
"All new buildings cost money to build, of course, but they also cost money to operate and maintain
each year they are in use," Ballinger wrote. "A secondary school costing $20 million to build will require
at least another $20 million to service the bond debt, to repair and maintain and to operate over a
period of 30 years. That total of $40 million or more - for one new building - is forever lost to the
more important instructional considerations of materials and supplies, field trips, instructional aides
and adequate salaries for the professionals involved in the education of the nation's young." [11]
Opponents say YRE's purported economies often fall short of expectations. Experience shows,
they say, that staff and operating costs inevitably rise after an existing school switches from a
traditional to a year-round schedule. Indeed, they argue, these expenses may be so great as to
eat up much of the money saved by not building a new school.
The unexpectedly high cost of air conditioning is a typical example. Because installing a
central cooling system is so costly, year-round education usually is limited to schools that
already have such equipment. But heat waves like the ones that seared much of the country
last summer can send school energy bills soaring well beyond budgeted levels. At the same time,
opponents say, stressful weather conditions make learning more difficult for many students.
A year-round schedule also can pose problems for school custodians accustomed to doing major
maintenance and repair jobs during the summer. The Oxnard Elementary School District's solution
was to contract out most big maintenance projects and transportation services. Painting, plumbing
and electrical contractors worked during off-hours and on weekends, thus saving much of the money
that would have gone toward medical benefits, worker compensation and overtime pay if additional
school staff had been hired. Switching from in-house to contract services provided "significant savings"
to the Oxnard district, Brekke said. [12]
Some experts argue that a longer school year helps deter juvenile crime, thus benefiting the entire
community. "Although juvenile crimes occur throughout each calendar year, the school vacation
periods and the peak periods of juvenile delinquency are closely related," veteran educator Mossie
J. Richmond Jr. noted in an early report on YRE. Police records show, he noted, that the number
of juvenile offenses abruptly falls after school holiday periods. Nonetheless, "the length of our
school year continues to stand as a monument to a bygone agrarian life and as an opportunity
for increased juvenile crime in America." [13]
Richard Johnson, assistant superintendent of schools in Loudoun County, Va., outside Washington,
says the cost-effectiveness of multi- track YRE vanishes if track sizes become imbalanced. "It's a
numbers game," he says. "If you've got four tracks, say, and you don't maintain equal numbers of
students on each, then you lose the gains you were looking for by going multi-track. In other words,
you can't have 100 students on one track, 300 on the second one, 250 on the third and 200 on the fourth.
They have got to be roughly equal in size."
Although tracks are equal size at the start, says Johnson, disparities are bound to develop as students
move into and out of the district. "If those calendars get out of balance, then your ability to administer
that program gets out of balance also," he says. "In some cases, you end up spending more money
for teachers when you don't need them. In other cases, you don't have enough teachers on staff to
handle a heavy influx of students."
A bigger problem, in Johnson's view, concerns "specialty classes" at both ends of the education
spectrum, such as advanced-placement courses in mathematics and special-education classes
for emotionally disturbed or learning-impaired youngsters. The difficulty here is that "you generally
don't have many sections of those classes, because not every student takes them," Johnson says.
This could cause scheduling and teacher-hiring headaches, since there may be too many specialty-
class students to accommodate on a single track, but not enough to divide between two or more tracks.
Scheduling problems arose in the 1970s in suburban Prince William County, Va., where Johnson
formerly was a division superintendent of schools. In 1980, as a result, 24,100 students on year-
round schedules in the fast-growing eastern part of the county were put back on a traditional schedule.
From Ballinger's perspective, equalizing the size of YRE tracks is a minor irritant at best. "Generally,
new arrivals in a community are assigned a track for balancing purposes," he says. "And we have
found that most parents, once they settle into a track, tend to stick with it." He adds that most multi-track
schools maintain waiting lists for parents seeking to switch schedules, "but there just aren't that many
requests for a change."
The sharply differing analyses of Johnson and Ballinger bear out one of the conclusions of the 1990
Phi Delta Kappa YRE survey: "Owing to the individualized quality of various programs, the difficulty in
matching schools and districts for comparative studies, the differences between year-round and
traditional-calendar schools in the same district, individual biases and excessive levels of enthusiasm
or pessimism, much of what is reported about year-round schools is inconclusive or contradictory." [14]
As for YRE's economic impact, the study declared: "Cost savings which result from the avoidance of
new construction are reduced by higher operating and maintenance costs. In growing districts, savings
may be entirely offset if inevitably necessary new construction is completed above original estimates,
due to inflation or other increases. A district should not consider implementing year-round school simply
to save money." [15]
- Does year-round schooling disrupt family leisure patterns and extracurricular activities?
Year-round education turns off many parents and schoolchildren because it eliminates the traditional
10-week summer vacation. "They see summer as special," writes Barrett, "as a time for young people
to be with their families, to do something that helps them grow - even if it is only attending summer
camp - or to earn some money." [16]
Indeed, many families argue that the long summer break is an integral part of the learning process,
enabling children to acquire guidance and skills that schools are ill-equipped to impart. "Time goes
by so quickly," says Tepe, "and there's so much that children have to learn. Values, for instance; things
like that are better taught by families themselves."
Last summer, Tepe recalls, her children "took part in karate camp, nature camp, swim team, family
outings and backyard carnivals. I know it's difficult to pinpoint or measure what children learn from
activities like those, but I regard them as being just as important as the more organized, formal type
of learning in a classroom."
Tepe's comments are comforting to leisure industries that heavily depend on spending for summer
vacation activities. The American Camping Association (ACA), for example, favors year-round
education ("a lifelong process which cannot be confined to four walls") but opposes year-round
schools because of their truncated summer break.* In a 1991 resolution, the ACA Board of Directors
said "organized camping is a vital component in the development and education of the whole child"
and voiced support for "the extension of organized camping experiences to all children." *
Ballinger says NAYRE has "no problem" with the camping industry's position. "We take issue with the
ACA, not in its basic philosophy, but rather in the reality of life - which is, that no more than 15 percent
of American students go to summer camp. Thus, the question for those of us in public education is,
what do we do with the other 85 percent? Public policy is always made for the benefit of the largest
number of people, not for the exceptions."
Heyns, however, questions the educational value of most summer camps. "All camps would like to
be endorsed as educationally valuable," she says. "But you can't really evaluate them in terms of
what their purposes are and/or what kids gain from them. They're set up for very different purposes
than traditional summer-school programs."
Many parents of children in year-round schools say the more frequent vacation breaks increase
family leisure options. Hawkins acknowledges that she was initially wary of the YRE schedule,
wondering, "How am I going to manage this? What will we do without that long summer vacation?"
But then, she says, "You come to realize that there are lots of places you can go and things you can
do - especially in the fall and spring, but also in the winter. We have winter sports here in Utah, so
my kids took skiing and ice-skating lessons when they were off-track in cold-weather months.
You can never do stuff like that during the summer."
Indeed, some observers argue that the leisure industry would benefit if school vacations were
distributed more evenly throughout the year. With traditional scheduling, Richmond wrote, energy
consumption soars and the quality of services suffers because of "the need to push equipment
beyond the normal capacity during peak tourist seasons," which generally coincide with the traditional
school schedule. "Extending the length of the school year or year-round education . . . would level
out substantially this undesirable tendency in tourism and travel," especially in summer. [17]
Critics of YRE at the high school level contend it disrupts the continuity of extracurricular activities
because all the students are not there at the same time; ultimately, they say, YRE frays school spirit.
One study found that "performing arts programs suffer [under YRE] and there is an increasing cost
to maintain rehearsals on a year- round basis." Band, chorus, drama and student government were
reported to be "particularly hard hit," while support for after-school programs in general was "very
weak during the summer months." [18]
Interscholastic sports, on the other hand, tend to adapt relatively well to a year-round schedule.
In the San Diego area, says Chavez, "Heavy workouts in football, cross-country and water polo
usually begin in September, and that's when we're off on our first break. Our kids begin their school
year in July and get to know their teachers and what's expected of them. Then, when the fall sports
season begins two months later, they have already settled comfortably into their academic routine.
The same thing happens in the spring. Soccer, baseball, volleyball and track seasons generally
begin in March. And we're on break that month also."
- ** The International Association of Amusement Parks andAttractions also opposes the
- shorter summer vacationstypical of year-round schooling.
- Background
In Colonial times, year-round schooling was a familiar concept to at least some American children.
In 1645, for instance, the town records of Dorchester, Mass., indicate that the schoolmaster began
teaching at 7 a.m. and dismissed the students at 5 p.m. from January through July. For the remaining
five months of the year, he started classes at 8 a.m. and ended at 4 p.m. [19] Not until the 1800s,
however, did school attendance become mandatory in Massachusetts and other parts of the country.
A different schooling pattern emerged in rural areas, where schools were open for two relatively
short periods each year: a winter term for older children, who usually were taught by men, and a
summer term for young children, usually taught by women. Many contemporary observers assume
that the system was guided by the needs of a rural economy, the older children being out of school
when their labor was needed on the farm.
Barrett, however, dismisses the idea that the agricultural cycle shaped the academic calendar.
"The historical record gives evidence that the period of mandatory school attendance increased
steadily over time as it was shaped by two broad influences: on the one hand, the always growing
demand for an educated work force, and on the other, the instinct to spare children from formal
schooling during the hottest months of the year, regardless of whether they had any role to play in
farming." [20]
By contrast, virtually year-round operation often was the rule in city schools during the 18th and
19th centuries. In the 1840s, for instance, public schools in Baltimore, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Detroit,
New York, Philadelphia and Washington stayed open at least 11 months a year, and the school
day ran from six to seven hours.
But the school year was gradually shortened. By 1890, 20 to 60 days had been lopped off in those
cities; by 1900, the 180-day school year, extending over a nine-month period of five-day weeks, had
become firmly established across the nation.
The trend did not meet with universal applause. In his annual report for 1894, U.S. Commissioner
of Education William T. Harris lamented a "distinct loss this year, the average number of days of
school having been reduced from 193.5 to 191." He added: "The boy of today must attend school
11.1 years in order to receive as much instruction, quantitatively, as the boy of 50 years ago received
in eight years. . . . It is scarcely necessary to look further than this for the explanation for the greater
amount of work accomplished . . . in the German and French [schools] than in the American schools." [21]
In 1898 Irwin Shepard, president of Minnesota's Winona Normal School (forerunner of Winona State
University), became the first U.S. educator to propose a year-round, four-term school year. Shepard
split the year into four three-month periods, corresponding roughly to the four seasons. His proposal
was, in effect, an early version of today's multi-track school calendar. The four-quarter plan was first
implemented in Bluffton, Ind., in 1904; it was dropped 11 years later.
Under the four-quarter format, students generally may choose, "or be assigned to, any combination
of three of the four quarters," Ballinger and his colleagues wrote. "They may attend the fourth quarter
on a voluntary basis, either on or off campus. The curriculum is organized so that each quarter is a
separate entity. A course begins and ends with each 12-week period. For example, social studies
and English programs may offer a series of separate but related courses. Subject areas requiring
sequential treatment such as mathematics will be offered in each of the four quarters to complete
a year of work." [22]
During the 1920s, more than a dozen school systems operated on a year-round basis, but by 1930
the number had dwindled to six. One of the complaints about such schools was that students who
attended them were too young on graduation from high school to go to college or to find permanent
work. By 1950, Richmond reported, "only Chattanooga, Tenn., was on the four-quarter plan." [23]
- Postwar Interest
The end of World War II sparked a revival of interest in year- round schools but yielded little positive
action. Communities that looked into the question differed on whether proposed plans would result in
savings or entail added costs.
In 1952, the Fairfield (Conn.) Citizens School Study Council reported that a proposed $5 million school
building program would cost taxpayers $368,750 a year for interest, amortization and maintenance, but
that it would cost only $81,900 a year to air-condition existing schools and operate them on a four-quarter
plan. Atlanta, on the other hand, concluded in 1957 that it would cost more to operate a four- quarter
system with existing facilities than to build new schools.
Los Angeles also had decided, in 1954, that an all-year school plan would be too costly, involve too
many administrative problems and fail to meet with public approval. The Florida State Department
of Education rejected a year-round school proposal in 1956 for the same reasons. And the school
board of Montgomery County, Md., near Washington, turned down a four-quarter plan in 1961.
After World War II, Lexington, Ky., was one of the few communities actually to institute a year-round
schedule for its public schools, but financial difficulties ended the program after 10 years. Although
more than one-third of the city's students attended classes in some summers, the plan never was
fully embraced by the community.
Although the year-long academic calendar made little headway in American school systems in the
1950s and '60s, traditional summer schools were enlarged, prompting a spurt in attendance.
Summer schools had been started in the 19th century, when shortening of the school year increased
delinquency problems among city children. To combat the problem, civic and charitable groups began
to sponsor what were called "vacation schools" for youngsters from poor families. Such schools
stressed character building and manual training.
These private ventures were gradually taken over by the public school systems. In Providence, R.I.,
the school superintendent reported in 1870 that school-sponsored vacation sessions proved "a
great blessing to the city" because the children had been "saved from the dangers and temptations
of the streets" and had received "useful instruction."
The Board of Education of Newark, N.J., established a summer school in 1885 for slow learners
who needed to make up classwork. As more vacation schools came under the control of school
boards, they tended more and more to offer standard courses, thus giving slow pupils a chance to
catch up and bright students a chance to move ahead.
Indeed, some educators of the period concluded that growth of summer schools and enlargement
of their curriculums would lead eventually to year-round operation of public schools. In 1962, Robert
F. Williams, a Virginia educator, noted the robust growth of summer schools in the state and predicted:
"As the world's knowledge increases and it becomes more and more imperative that we utilize to the
fullest possible extent the time and talents of both children and teachers, not to mention making the
fullest possible use of an enormously expensive educational plant, we will move forward toward a
longer school year." [24]
- California Leads Way
However, movement toward that goal has been slower and more fitful than Williams probably
imagined. It was not until 1968 that Hayward, Calif., introduced a single-track YRE schedule at
Park Elementary School. Park thus became the first YRE school of the modern era. Still inoperation,
Park reigns as the nation's oldest year-round program.
Another YRE milestone came in 1969, when Francis Howell School District in St. Charles, Mo.,
implemented the nation's first multiple- track year-round program. It was initially dubbed a 9-3
calendar, because students attended school for nine consecutive weeks (not counting weekends
and holidays), then had three weeks off and then started the cycle again. Today the program is
known as a 45-15 calendar, for the number of school and vacation days in the cycle.
California's first two multi-track YRE schools began operating in 1971 in the Chula Vista District
(grades K-6) and La Mesa-Spring Valley District (grades K-8), both in San Diego County. More
significantly, the schools served as models for similar schools in 13 other California districts that
adopted YRE schedules by 1974. Today, more than half of all schools in the country operating
year-round are in the Golden State.
California's embrace of YRE has been less than wholehearted, however. In June 1993, the Los
Angeles Unified School District Board of Education voted to return 542 of its schools from a single-
track year-round schedule back to the traditional September-June calendar. The board acted after
parents, teachers and administrators turned thumbs down on YRE. *
"The vote was a surprise to me," said school board member Mark Slavkin. "It counters the myth that
only a handful hated the new [year-round] calendar, that the opposition was an elitist thing." [25]
Parents had opposed the single-track calendar since its inception. They complained that the eight-week
winter break interrupted learning momentum, disrupted family summer plans and created child-care
problems. Many also complained about sweltering, unair-conditioned classrooms in summer.
For strictly personal reasons, returning to the traditional calendar dismayed some students. Reseda
High School student Payan Khalepari said his family had planned a ski trip during the long winter
intersession, a time when most adults worked. "Now, we can't book reservations because we'd have
to go the two weeks everyone else goes," he said, "and they are all booked." [26]
*One school among the 543 Los Angeles schools that voted onyear-round education opted to
retain YRE. Schools on amulti-track YRE schedule did not vote; serving about 40percent of the
city's approximately 640,000 students, theyare multi-track to ease severe overcrowding.
- Chronology
17th Century: In some American schools during the Colonial era, education is virtually all-day-
long and year-round.
1645: In Dorchester, Mass., the schoolmaster starts teaching at 7 a.m. and sends his pupils
home at 5 p.m. from January to June. From July through December, he teaches from 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m.
1890s-1900s: As the average school year approaches its current length of about 180 days, the
first proposals for year-round education (YRE) are voiced.
1894: U.S. Commissioner of Education William T. Harris, lamenting a reduction in the average
length of the school year, declares that, "The boy of today must attend school 11.1 years in order to
receive as much instruction, quantitatively, as the boy of 50 years ago received in eight years."
1898: Minnesota educator Irwin Shepard proposes that schools operate continuously throughout
the year on a four-quarter schedule.
1904: Bluffton, Ind., becomes the first American community to adopt a four-quarter school calendar,
an early variant of the year-round model. The town returns to a traditional school schedule in 1915.
1930s-1950s: Year-round schooling falls out of fashion under the twin pressures of the Great
Depression and World War II.
1949: Lexington, Ky., institutes a year-round school schedule but abandons it 10 years later
because of financial difficulties.
1954: Los Angeles concludes that an all-year school calendar would cost too much, entail
too many administrative problems and fail to win popular support.
1957: Atlanta school officials decide it would cost more to convert the school system to a
four-quarter calendar than to build new schools.
1960s-1970s: California emerges as a pacesetter in year-round education movement.
1968: Hayward, Calif., introduces the first contemporary single-track, YRE calendar in the
nation at Park Elementary School. The program is still in place.
1969: The Francis Howell School District in St. Charles, Mo., implements the country's first
multi-track YRE schedule.
1971: La Mesa-Spring Valley and Chula Vista school districts, both in San Diego County,
launch California's first multi-track programs.
1990s Year-round education records gains and setbacks.
June 7, 1993: Los Angeles discontinues the year-round schedule at more than 540 schools.
April 1994: The National Education Commission on Time and Learning issues its Prisoners
of Time report, which warns: "We have been asking the impossible of our students - that they
learn as much as their foreign peers while spending only half as much time in academic
subjects."
September 1994: A follow-up report by the National Education Commission shows the many
options available to school administrators wishing to make more productive use of classroom time.
February 1996: The National Association for Year-Round Education reports that more than 1.7
million students attended year-round schools in 1995-96. The National Association of Secondary
School Principals urges that U.S. schools "operate on a 12-month basis to provide more time for
professional staff development, collegial planning and the added instruction needed to promote
better student learning."
April 25, 1996: A National Science Foundation report points to significant though geographically
uneven progress in U.S. mathematics and science education, all the way from elementary school
to the graduate school level.
- Current Situation
The largely unvarying schedule of the U.S. school day and school year perplexes and dismays
many educators. Although American public schools are governed largely by local boards of
education with broad scheduling freedom, the 51-minute class period, 180-day school year
and 10-week summer vacation have been standard across the country for generations.
"That there should be an identifiable American school year at all is remarkable in itself,"
wrote Barrett. "The federal system in the United States is supposed to encourage variety. . . .
But no single state with a choosy citizenry has undertaken to remold its schools to meet changing
social and economic needs. Instead, conformity rules with an iron hand." [27]
However, three recent reports suggest that the iron hand may be relaxing its grip. Prisoners of
Time, issued in April 1994 by the National Education Commission on Time and Learning, declared
that "Time is the missing element in our great national debate about learning and the need for higher
standards for all students." The report added, "Our schools and the people involved with them -
students, teachers, administrators, parents and staff - are prisoners of time, captives of the school
clock and calendar."
"We have been asking the impossible of students - that they learn as much as their foreign
peers while spending only half as much time in core academic subjects," the report continued.
"The [education] reform movement of the last decade is destined to founder unless it is harnessed
to more time for learning." [28]
Many of the commission's comments were aimed at the scheduling and crediting of classroom
instruction: "No matter how complex or simple the school subject - literature, shop, physics, gym or
algebra - the schedule assigns each an impartial national average of 51 minutes per class period,
no matter how well or poorly students comprehend the material." The panel also found fault with
secondary school graduation requirements, which "are universally based on seat time Ú 'Carnegie
units,' a standard of measurement representing one credit for completion of a one-year course
meeting daily." [29]
Moreover, the commission found, U.S. secondary schools devoted far less time to core academic
subjects than did comparable schools in Germany and Japan. An analysis of time requirements
for core subjects* in 41 states and the District of Columbia yielded "startling" results: "on average,
students can receive a high school diploma - often sufficient in itself for university entrance - if they
devote only 41 percent of their school time to core academic work." [30] *
To rectify these and other shortcomings of U.S. secondary education, the panel urged more creative
use of the time available for instruction. "Block scheduling - the use of two or more periods for
extended exploration of complex topics or for science laboratories - should become more common,"
it declared. "Providing a more flexible school day could also permit American schools to follow
international practice - between classes students remain in the room and teachers come to them." [31]
However, the commission deliberately refrained from recommending a fixed number of hours per
school day or days per year. That's because "No single configuration will satisfy every need," it stated.
"Districts of any size, with a sense of vision, boldness and entrepreneurship can experiment with
block scheduling, team teaching, longer days and years and extending time with new distance-
learning technologies." [32]
In a follow-up report issued in September 1994, the commission published brief case histories of
selected elementary, middle and high schools with flexible scheduling formats. At top-rated Thomas
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va., for example, each school
day is lengthened by one period, during which students are required to take part in a student activity
or related coursework such as tutoring, laboratories or guidance sessions. "Daily schedules are
also flexible enough to let classes meet for extended times as required. This [blocking] arrangement
also provides flexibility for professional development time for teachers." [33]
At Davis Elementary School in Gresham, Ore., math instruction is provided before and after
school, during the noon hour and recess and during the summer. "Test results between the fall
of 1990 and the fall of 1991 indicated that Davis' third-, fourth- and fifth-graders' math skills increased
at a rate about 50 percent higher than other students in the system," the commission noted. [34]
- Principals' Group Endorses Commission Report
A recent report by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) endorsed
many of the National Education Commission's proposals. "Scheduling and the length of both the
school day and the school year . . . can serve as allies in creating a more intimate environment,"
the NASSP asserted. It added that "Lengthening the day or the year can also allow for staggered
schedules so that the school accommodates smaller numbers of students at any one time." [35]
Flexible instruction schedules, "especially in conjunction with a 12-month school year, can
facilitate enrichment, make it easier to offer tutoring and provide time for students to work on projects
- alone, in groups and in collaboration with teachers," the report argued. "Time will be available for
students who lag to catch up and for the ablest students to delve deeper into their studies." [36]
In addition, the report called attention to instructional options outside the school setting. "For years,"
it stated, "high schools have made minimal use of programs that reach beyond the four walls of the
classroom: work-study, independent learning, distance learning, apprenticeships, mentorships,
internships, job shadowing, independent study, field trips, travel, courses at college, student-
conducted research."
As the National Education Commission observed in its September follow-up report, many schools
across the country already have revamped their instructional schedules. At San Diego's Eastlake
High, reports counselor Chavez, students have a "full menu" of classes with all their teachers on
Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. "But on Tuesdays and Thursdays, they only meet with three
teachers, for two hours each. This gives them time to listen to a lecture and then do a lab experiment
or write a report all at once, rather than having to wait until the next day to do part of it."
Nationwide, says NASSP's Lammel, "about 40 percent of high schools are now considering
or implementing block scheduling of classes. That compares with just 25 percent a year or so ago."
A key advantage of the longer class period under block scheduling, notes Lammel, comes from
eliminating the time spent walking from classroom to classroom between periods of traditional
length. Moreover, he says, "We're beginning to see test results suggesting that block scheduling
improves educational achievement. I'm certain it's going to continue to expand."
- ** The commission defined core subjects as English andlanguage arts, mathematics,
- science, civics, history,geography, the arts and foreign languages.
- Pro/Con
- Does year-round education improve academic performance?
Charles Ballinger
Executive Director, National Association for Year-Round Education.
From "Rethinking the School Calendar," Educational Leadership, February 1988.
The September-June school calendar has outlived its usefulness. Originally it had a strong purpose:
to enhance the prevailing agricultural economy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was not
designed to enhance instruction then, and it does not do so now. . . .
Children learn continually; that thesis underlies a school's formal curriculum, which is usually
sequential in nature or tied to the learner's earlier experiences. The customary long summer
vacation disrupts the continuity of instruction that curriculum planners desire. Further, the extensive
reviews most teachers conduct in September and October limit the number of days available for
introduction of new material and subsequent mastery of that material.
Accumulated over a period of 12 years, review time takes its toll on the subsequent achievement
of most students. A less interrupted flow of instruction throughout the year will certainly enhance
the education of the most able students, who learn continuously, whether in or out of school.
Likewise, average students are also ill-served by the traditional calendar because the long review
early in the school year is largely wasted time for them. Interestingly, the least able students are not
well served by the traditional school calendar either. A summer away from school disrupts the
learning pattern required by slower students, who learn best from a continuous cycle of teaching,
practice, reteaching and practice. . . .
Besides instructional considerations, contemporary social factors demand a rethinking of the
traditional school calendar. An increasing number of students come from homes where English
is not the primary language. Formal language instruction, which is best offered on a continuous
basis, is disrupted by a long break. For most students, the language of the summer is going to
be the language of the community, whether it is English or not. . . .
Another troubling social factor is the number of students with little to do during the summer months.
Of what value to society is a situation in which urban and suburban teenagers are free to roam
neighborhood streets, unsupervised, unemployed and unoccupied, for up to three months? . . .
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 . . . would the American public allow, or even consider,
such a calendar?
- Time to Learn
- Coalition based in Charlotte, N.C., that supports the traditional
- school calendar. From "Year-Round Schools May Not
- Be the Answer," January 1995.
Changing the days that students attend school does not address what many believe are the real
problems in education, which include lack of parent involvement, curriculum that needs restructuring,
teacher continued education and effectiveness of teaching methods.
Proponents claim that with the shorter, more frequent breaks of a year-round calendar, students
retain more of what they've learned. But psychologists believe this is an unproven and illogical
claim. Randall Engle, the Georgia Tech psychology department chair specializing in human
memory, says children forget most of what they learn in the first three weeks after a lesson.
Therefore, shorter, more frequent breaks would give children more opportunities to forget and
increase the need for review. . . .
Few comprehensive studies are available to prove the effectiveness of year-round schools.
Educators caution that research supporting year-round schools is scant and unscientific. From
the country's 2,000+ year-round schools, a National Association for Year-Round Education researcher
could find only 13 comprehensive studies on the issue. Ten of those studies show year-round
students performing better; only seven show significant improvement. Tom Payne, a year- round
consultant for the California Department of Education, says each study is flawed in some way,
using improper methodology or lacking control groups and breadth. . . .
School districts often consider implementing year-round schools to solve an overcrowding problem.
In some cases, year-round schools have provided temporary relief. However, several districts report
year- round schools did not accomplish this goal or were merely a band-aid solution to a long-term
problem. If overcrowding is a long-term concern, new construction is inevitable and postponing
construction merely increases future construction costs. . . .
Although some parents and teachers find the year-round schedule more convenient, many who
experience year-round schools - students, teachers, parents and administrators - express frustration
and dissatisfaction. . . .
Before experimenting with the school calendar, it is important to learn all sides of the issue. It is
questionable whether year-round programs enhance learning and save money. It is not questionable
that quality education is essential to the well-being of our children, state and nation - or that improving
educational standards is a commendable, constant goal. But year-round education is not an effective
approach.
- Outlook
Eventually, the debate on year-round education centers on a single question: "If this is such a
great idea, why aren't more schools doing it?" Critics make much of the fact that only a tiny fraction
of all U.S. pupils attend year-round schools, most of which are concentrated in rapidly growing
states vulnerable to classroom overcrowding. This shows, the critics argue, that year-round
education has little inherent appeal.
Supporters of YRE retort that the statistics cited by critics must be viewed in historical context.
Since the modern movement is barely more than 25 years old, they say, the current extent of year-
round schooling - 2,368 year-round public schools in 37 states - is respectable, if unspectacular.
NAYRE's Ballinger foresees continued growth of year-round education over the foreseeable future.
"Year-round will become more prevalent, for several reasons," he says. "First, the American lifestyle
is changing. Summer isn't the only vacation season. Families pack up the kids and head for Orlando
every month of the year. They just pull the kids out of school and go.
"Second, there are educational pressures to change the structure of the school year. As we build
up documentation showing that there is such a thing as summer learning loss, and that a way exists
to curb that loss, the onus will be on schools and educators to take corrective action. I think the public
will demand that.
"And finally, there are societal changes as well. People are questioning the wisdom of that long
summer vacation. Social workers and law-enforcement officials don't like the idea of kids having
very little to do for up to three months - there's too much chance for them to get into trouble."
Maryland homemaker Tepe vehemently disagrees, arguing that the traditional summer school
vacation has proved its worth again and again. Paraphrasing the oft-quoted passage from
Ecclesiastes, she says: "There is a time for school, and there is a time for there not to be school.
In other words, there are sound reasons for some of these traditions. And in this case the main
one is, kids need time to be with their families."
Albuquerque's Patterson shares Tepe's view. "I think the National Association for Year-Round
Education is pretty well burned out," he says. "They're going to be around a while longer, but they
have very little credence. They're pushing an education gimmick that has failed. Kids need to have
unstructured time [in the summer] to develop properly. Unstructured play is probably the most useful
socialization tool that we have."
Heyns of New York University says it's difficult to assess the future of year-round education, since
"Schooling in the U.S. is, of course, a local initiative. Therefore, it's impossible to say something
about every program in every district. The number and diversity of programs that exist is extraordinary.
So one would not want to judge what is happening, and with what kinds of effects. There has never
been such an evaluation, and it's hard to imagine that one could be done. But in general, I think year-
round schooling's time may have come."
Brekke, the former Oxnard, Calif., superintendent, agrees. "The most difficult part of implementing
a year-round program is breaking what I call the inertia of tradition - getting used to something new,"
he says. "In Oxnard, we found that that transition period was relatively short. After the first year, people
recognized that the sun continued to rise in the East, and the solar system hadn't ground to a halt.
Though there were a lot of fears initially that year-round education would undermine family traditions,
people found it did not. In fact, they found it enhanced the quality of family life."
In its 20 years of existence, Brekke says, Oxnard's year-round schooling program has become
institutionalized - a gradual process he feels could be duplicated in other communities. Year-round "
clearly is a permanent fixture of Oxnard's educational environment," he says. "I think there would be
great anguish today among parents, school staff and the community as a whole if there was a serious
attempt to return to the old schedule. That's because year-round education has become, in Oxnard at
least, the traditional school calendar."