Year Round School
UCEA Presentation 2013
Adrian Ramirez
YEAR ROUND SCHOOL / 1The presentation examined the effectiveness on traditional and year-round calendars on student learning and academic achievement. In addition, observed the economic impact year-round education has on the tourism and property tax value of homes. Last, discussed the impact on administrator and teacher experiences working in year-round schools.
Educational reformers, parents and employers have proposed solutions on improving schools (Noll, 2012). In 1983, a report from the National Commission of Excellence examined the effectiveness of public schools. Its report concluded that schools were failing students and prompted recommendations by the commission on improving the school system. One recommendation by the commission was extending the school year (180 to 220 days) and adding more instructional time at school. In fact, President Obama has called for longer school days to compete with students around the world; in some cases these students attend 25 to 30 percent longer than American students (Dessoff, 2011). However, a century has passed and many of the recommendation have not transpired.
The debate on school reform continues and critics for longer schools days or year-round schools argue that adding quality instruction time during the traditional school day is more successful. Moreover, proponents for traditional school-year argue that there is no longitudinal research or studies to indicate that year-round schools are more effective than traditional schools. However, the origin of year-round calendars date back to 1904 when the four quarter schedule was introduced Indiana (Hood & Freeman, 2000). Nonetheless, these proponents for traditional schools point out factors that influence student achievement such as teacher quality, cultural background and available resources (Noll, 2010). Education reformers seem to point to the fact that year-round schools can be a practical solution to the achievement gaps of students.
The State of Texas has implemented a rules and regulations which dictate that schools may not begin instruction before the fourth Monday in August. If districts operate year-round on a single or multi-track schedule the State will provide exemptions. In other words, year-round districts have the ability and flexibility to modify contract dates of employees, staff development, testing dates, and the assignment of the first day of class (Education Code 25.0811).
According to the Department of Education the traditional length of instruction averages around 180 days per year. Additionally, students on traditional calendar calendars are off nearly three months in the summer. Research shows that students off for long periods in the summer tend to lose about two months of achievement in Math skills (Dessoff, 2011). Moreover, students with low socioeconomic status tend to have a greater effect losing up to two months of reading skills while middle-class students may make gains. Educational reformers indicate that middle-class students can afford to attend summer reading camps or access summer programs that low socioeconomic students cannot. Nonetheless, more schools are transitioning to year-round schools in an effort to combat the long breaks. Dessoff (2011) cautioned that the transitioning is anecdotal at the most. He found little evidence to indicate year-round schedule positively affects student test scores. Moreover, there was very no evidence to correlate the year-round schedule to any measurable academic gains. In contrast, Huebner (2010) concluded that students in year-round schools did better academically and this particular schedule supported low-income families more than the traditional schedule. St. Gerard (2007) points out year-round schools can be effective if schools utilize instruction effectively. He found that schools can take advantage of the periodic breaks for remediation and additional instruction for its struggling learners. Although, critics suggest school districts are transitioning to year-round schedules for all the wrong reasons. The idea with year-round schools is to provide a more linear and continuous education (Marshall, 2000). With an increase of student enrollment and a decrease of state funding school districts are looking at ways to alleviate school overcrowding. Not surprising, schools that adopted a year-round schedule quickly found that it was too expensive to operate and quickly reverted back to the traditional schedule.
From a research analysis, research shows that summer loss is a real problem, especially for economically disadvantaged students (Huebner, 2010). However, critics are not completely sold to the idea of modifying their school academic calendars. First, they point out the cost to taxpayers and poor communities who cannot afford year-round schedules. For example, research illustrates that schools who convert their calendar may have to pay more money to its teachers and staff through higher salaries or extended working periods. Moreover, the logistical nightmare of year-round schedules that have children from the same household attending different tracks. Von Hippel (2007), states that year-round schools do little to increase time students spend at school. In other words, year-round schools fail to address the problem of increasing student achievement.
A longitude study carried out by under the direction of the National Center for Educational Statistics examined over 17, 030 children enrolled in 992 public and private schools discovered minimal advantages to year-round schools (Von Hippel, 2007). The study noted that year-round schools did not increase learning but only distributed learning loss throughout the calendar year. In other words, the research illustrates what we may already know that students are still exposed to the same amount of instructional time throughout the year. They did uncover that while students in year-round schools do learn more in the summer. However, these same students lag behind the traditional schools as a result to the intersession breaks throughout the calendar year. More important, if schools do not have the money to provide tutoring during the intersession breaks the amount learned is the same as traditional calendar years.
Research also suggests that year-round schools are more prevalent in poor communities. In fact, disadvantage schools are more likely to face educational reforms simply because they lack the resources to organize and oppose changes (Von Hippel, 2007).
The National Association for Year Round Education (NAYRE) states that the number of states implementing year round education has grown significantly with California representing nearly half of the year-round schools. In the last several years Texas and Arizona have also seen in increase in year-round education. The authors of Student Segregation and Achievement Tracking in Year-Round Schools found that year-round schools segregate students within the school tracks specifically minority students. In essence, they are inhibiting equal educational opportunity for all students. Mitchell and Mitchell (2005) state that schools tracking system originally designed to facilitate overcrowding have had unintended consequences. For example, students are given preference to educational tracks based on several factors such as siblings, returning students, and parental visitation. However, these schools have also designated tracks for students involved in special programs. In other words, students in bilingual programs, special education, band, and athletic teams are placed in specific track to avoid duplicating costs. In fact, once these students are placed in a track they have very little exposure to other students on different tracks. This inevitably contributes to differentiated enrollment patterns as students are separated by attendance tracks. What’s more, the redistribution of resources within the tracks may not be equal. For example, teachers who are part of specific programs such as music, physical education or curriculum specialist may only be available for students on their tracks. In addition, they found a biased distribution of teaching talent and student demographic within the year-round school calendar. As a result, the least popular tracks had the largest portion of minority students and the least student achievement.
For example, the study found parents opposing year-round schools are typically comprised of upper-class families. More alarming, the study found that Hispanics were three-times more likely to be in a year-round school than White students (Von Hippel, 2007). Not surprising that year-round schools were more prevalent in Western States where a larger population of Hispanic students were located. This may not be surprising because historically minority groups in the United States have faced obstacles to an equitable education. Critical Race theorist may suggest imbalance of power and subsequently minorities are used as pawns by educational reformist. Research has indicated that year-round school tracks have segregated students based on ethnic and academic achievement makeup. Critics highlight several problems year-round schools face such as managing the transitions of calendars, placing siblings on different tracks, and motivating students in the summer (Wu & Stone, 2010). Additionally, some schools lack the air conditioning required and as a result of hot classrooms teachers face with a decline of student concentration.
From an economic perspective,research suggests that schools that school with moderate to high student scores positively affect residential property values (Clauretie & Neill, 2000). It appears school districts are lured into year-round schedule with the promise of saving money. For example, according to Year-Round Schedules and Property Values students can access 25% more of the schools facilities than traditional calendars. In other words, schools have the ability to utilize their science lab, computers, and classrooms often since schools are operating for extended periods. However, research also indicates that residential property values may suffer. This is a result of the perception of added noise and traffic accompanying year-round schools. Addition, schools may have to pay an additional cost to for fuel and bus drivers during the intersessions. A study conducted in Clark County School District in Nevada that examined residential property values and its effects by year-round schedules examined this correlation. The study discovered that year-round schedules appear to reduce property values by 5.2 % (Clauretie & Neill, 2000). As a result, schools cost-savings diminished by its loss in revenue from decreased residential property value.
Moreover, the hospitality industry employs over 181,000 seasonal workers and fifty –three percent come from the school system (Pickeral & Hubbard, 2002). In a study examining the effects of the tourism industry in Tennessee with the implementation of year-round schools found a negative impact. For example, according to the Tennessee Department of Labor (2000), from Memorial Day to Labor Day seasonal workers comprise of over 49 percent of the workforce. In other words, the tourism industry is dependent of the school system to provide and sustain it industry. The State of Tennessee is dependent in the tourism industry in terms of revenue and stability of its economy. Pickeral and Hubbard (2002) state that if school do implement year-round schedules this would result with a loss of 65 percent of its seasonal worker and devastation of its economy.
It seems apparent through the research that schools can experience cost-savings by implementing year-round calendars. However, it is important to understand the research is still divided when deciding which calendar has the most effect on student achievement. As school more districts implement year-round calendars to alleviate overcrowding and improve student achievement. They must be informed on the inequality of the tracking system specifically on minority students.
References
Alemán, E. (2009). Educational leadership and advocacy: Struggling over whiteness as property in texas school finance. Equity & Excellence In Education, 42(2), 183-201. doi:10.1080/10665680902744246
Clauretie, T. M., & Neill, H. R. (2000). Year-Round School Schedules and Residential Property Values. Journal Of Real Estate Finance And Economics, 20(3), 311-322.
Cook, G. (2005). Calendar wars. American School Board Journal, 192(1), 24-27.
Demetrulias, D. (2005). From self-supported to state-supported administration of summer programs: The california state university's conversion to year round education. Summer Academe, 527-43
Dessoff, A. (2011). Is year-round schooling on track?. District Administration, 47(7), 34-45.
Gismondi Haser, S., & Nasser, I. (2003). Teacher job satisfaction in a year-round school. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 65.
Hood, S., & Freeman, D. J. (2000). Contrasting experiences of white students and students of color in a year-round high school. Journal Of Negro Education, 69(4), 349
Huebner, T. A. (2010). Year-Round Schooling. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 83-84.
Janssen, J. J. (2000). Public school finance, school choice, and equal educational opportunity in texas: The enduring importance of background conditions. Review Of Litigation, 19(1), 1.
Marsh, P. (2000). Camp and year-round school. Camping Magazine, 73(4), 19.
McGlynn, A. (2002). Districts that school year-round. School Administrator, 59(3), 34.
McMillen, B. J. (2001). A statewide evaluation of academic achievement in year-round schools. Journal Of Educational Research, 95(2), 67
Mitchell, R. E., & Mitchell, D. E. (2005). Student segregation and achievement tracking in year round schools. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 34. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00486.x
Noll, J. (2012). Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues, expanded. (16th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.
St. Gerard, V. (2007). Year-round schools look better all the time. Education Digest, 72(8), 56-58.
Von Hippel, P. (2007). What happens to summer learning in a year-round school?. Conference Papers – American Sociological Association, 1.
Wu, A. D., & Stone, J. E. (2010). Does year round schooling affect the outcome and growth of california's api scores?. Journal Of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 10(1), 79-97.
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal Of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 51-60.