Year round schools

: I'd be interested to hear what teachers on the group think about this.
: I would have thought a 2.5-month summer vacation would be better for
: travel, study, etc. (Are there many certification-related courses you
: can take in a 3-week period?)

Personally I would **love** to be on year-round school. I've heard of some
districts doing a "9 on/4 off" arrangement throughout the year, completely
eliminating the extended summer break but giving everybody a whole month off
in every season. That would be my ideal schedule, since there are so many
places we want to go during the winter, also--ski trip to Austria in the
winter, a spring trip to the Himalayas, etc. Those kinds of vacations are
not possible with the current schedule.

: From my own personal standpoint, I think the 2.5-month vacation would be
: one of the few tangible benefits of a teaching job. (My mother, a
: retired teacher, concurs.) But I'm sure there are others with a
: different view.

Well, sure, but with a year-round schedule you'd still get the same amount
of break, just spread out more. Let's face it, if you take the 2.5 months
in the summer and add in 2 weeks for Christmas, a week for spring break, a
fall break, Thanksgiving, etc., you're really looking at more like 4 months
of breaks. To me it would be a real plus to take those one month at a time.
And every 9-week segment of school would not seem so interminably looooong!

As for the impact on learning, I'm not sure about that. I know how kids get
the last few weeks of school, but I can't decide if a year-round schedule
would mean they were *constantly* in those last few weeks, or that the "last
few week" syndrome would disappear since it would be such a non-factor.

Now, if *my* district went to a year-round schedule while my stepson's
stayed on a traditional schedule, that would really mess things up. Not
that I don't enjoy having a day off now and then when he's at school--but I
definitely don't want to take a whole month vacation when he's still in
school. That would completely ruin any benefit.
--
ColoradoSkiBum

Clisby wrote:


I'd be interested to hear what teachers on the group think about this. I
would have thought a 2.5-month summer vacation would be better for
travel, study, etc. (Are there many certification-related courses you
can take in a 3-week period?)


There are similar issues with kids, especially high
school aged kids. Whither all the really spectacular
summer programs, like Interlochen, Hugh O'Brien, etc.,
if there are only shorter breaks and they don't roughly
coincide nationwide? I'm not sure there's a good way
around this one. It's a tough issue because these elite
programs only affect a fairly small percentage of kids
(I'd imagine), but they're really great opportunities for
those kids who go.


From my own personal standpoint, I think the 2.5-month vacation would be
one of the few tangible benefits of a teaching job. (My mother, a
retired teacher, concurs.) But I'm sure there are others with a
different view.


If we're speaking solely in terms of vacations, I'm
not sure I see 2.5 contiguous months as better than the
same amount of time spread around the year more. I know
that as a parent, it's very frustrating to have our only
good travel time in the summer or over a major holiday.
There are places that would be nice to go in the fall!
And I'm not all that thrilled with visiting the in-laws
in the summer in Florida. I'd rather go when it's a bit
more temperate. I imagine some teachers would feel
similarly. I would think the only benefit of having
2.5 contiguous months would be for those who were able
to do really extended travel or those who wanted to
take courses or whatnot.


I realize this could really complicate child care arrangemnents for
people without a parent at home, though.


I'm not so sure. We have a handfull of schools
around here that are on a year-round program. The local
daycares have just adapted and provide full day care
during the breaks, just as they provide full day care
during the summer. I think the only difficulty would
be if a particular school were the only year round
school among many traditional calendar schools, such
that the community didn't adapt much.

Best wishes,
Ericka

: There are similar issues with kids, especially high
: school aged kids. Whither all the really spectacular
: summer programs

And another thing I didn't think about: Summer jobs. Sort of a rite of
passage for your older teens. I wonder if they'd be able to find jobs that
they could keep for a month, then quit for 2 months, back and forth like
that.
--
ColoradoSkiBum

On 9 Nov 2003 11:56:52 -0800, Banty wrote:

It could really mess things up for families with more than one child in school,
unless it's really well implemented (at the least, based on consistent
assignments between elementary/junior high/high schools).

While it can be difficult, most schools that implement this do have
the option for all children in a single family to stay on the same
track schedule. It is harder when the child goes into middle or high
school to keep that up, but it can be done and any parent who has
children in several year round schools should be accomodated.

One of the reasons why the high school I taught at that was on 4
shifts did not go to year round was that the elementary schools that
fed the high school were not going to do this so it would have been
impossible for the parents of our high schoolers most of whom had
brothers and sisters in elementary school and most of whom also
babysat for those younger children whenever the children were off
from school.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Clisby wrote:


I'd be interested to hear what teachers on the group think about this. I
would have thought a 2.5-month summer vacation would be better for
travel, study, etc. (Are there many certification-related courses you
can take in a 3-week period?)


There are similar issues with kids, especially high
school aged kids. Whither all the really spectacular
summer programs, like Interlochen, Hugh O'Brien, etc.,
if there are only shorter breaks and they don't roughly
coincide nationwide? I'm not sure there's a good way
around this one. It's a tough issue because these elite
programs only affect a fairly small percentage of kids
(I'd imagine), but they're really great opportunities for
those kids who go.


From my own personal standpoint, I think the 2.5-month vacation would be
one of the few tangible benefits of a teaching job. (My mother, a
retired teacher, concurs.) But I'm sure there are others with a
different view.


If we're speaking solely in terms of vacations, I'm
not sure I see 2.5 contiguous months as better than the
same amount of time spread around the year more. I know
that as a parent, it's very frustrating to have our only
good travel time in the summer or over a major holiday.
There are places that would be nice to go in the fall!
And I'm not all that thrilled with visiting the in-laws
in the summer in Florida. I'd rather go when it's a bit
more temperate. I imagine some teachers would feel
similarly. I would think the only benefit of having
2.5 contiguous months would be for those who were able
to do really extended travel or those who wanted to
take courses or whatnot.


For me, having the time off in the summer was important. For one thing,
I HATED having time off in February, when it was too cold to spend much
time outside. And I hated haveing the kids in school once the weather
got nice. When you live someplace like northern Minnesota, and can't
afford to "go away" for vacations and don't ski -- summer vacation is
just too important.

The other reason I liked the longer summer vacations is that I could
only afford to go home (to my parent's) once a year. It took us 4 days
to get there (we drove and camped) and 4 days to get back, and we
usually stayed for 5 weeks. With only 15 day vacations spread
throughout the year, we would have lost that great summer time with
extended family who lived far, far away.

Now that I live where the weather is nice most of the time, and where
even the nasty weather isn't all that bad, I don't think I'd mind a year
round schedule; but in places with real winters, I'll take my kids'
time off when we can go swimming!

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Hi -

The places where year-round schooling seems to be most popular is in
inner cities, where the kids don't have good summer options for a long
vacation. If the kids are just going to be trapped at home waiting for
a parent, or hang out on the street corner or the mall, then shorter
vacations make great sense.

Even if the kids are going to camps, summer jobs, or other great
opportunities, you don't necessarily need 2 1/2 months for the single
activity. And the younger the child, the less sense these lengthy
vacations make, since the long opportunities aren't necessarily
appropriate for children younger than, at the least, middle school.

Just my two cents,
--Beth Kevles

http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would
like me to reply.

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Clisby wrote:


I'd be interested to hear what teachers on the group think about this. I
would have thought a 2.5-month summer vacation would be better for
travel, study, etc. (Are there many certification-related courses you
can take in a 3-week period?)

I'd have trouble with it for this reason. I've actually had problems the
last few years because they moved up the start date of school DRAMATICALLY
here, with the result that we're starting before the university classes end
for the summer session.

Some programs have compressed classes in 2 or 4 weeks, but the schedule is
extremely intense, and you'd be in no shape to start teaching right after
having finished one. Orff music certification is traditionally.done in 2
week blocks, and it is 80 contact hours of graduate coursework, plus at
least 3-4 hours of homework a night, in two weeks. It's exhausting, and
strenuous, and the current trend is to start moving to a more traditional
graduate schedule (this scheduling for Orff and Kodaly training started when
the clinicians had to be brought over from Europe, and so there was a big
financial incentive in keeping the class as short as possible. Now that we
have large numbers of trained expert clinicians in the states, there is no
reason to do the levels in this format).



There are similar issues with kids, especially high
school aged kids. Whither all the really spectacular
summer programs, like Interlochen, Hugh O'Brien, etc.,
if there are only shorter breaks and they don't roughly
coincide nationwide? I'm not sure there's a good way
around this one. It's a tough issue because these elite
programs only affect a fairly small percentage of kids
(I'd imagine), but they're really great opportunities for
those kids who go.

I have to agree. I did several very high level arts camps which were 6 or 8
weeks long during school, and I wouldn't have missed those experiences for
the world.

From my own personal standpoint, I think the 2.5-month vacation would
be
one of the few tangible benefits of a teaching job. (My mother, a
retired teacher, concurs.) But I'm sure there are others with a
different view.


If we're speaking solely in terms of vacations, I'm
not sure I see 2.5 contiguous months as better than the
same amount of time spread around the year more. I know
that as a parent, it's very frustrating to have our only
good travel time in the summer or over a major holiday.
There are places that would be nice to go in the fall!
And I'm not all that thrilled with visiting the in-laws
in the summer in Florida. I'd rather go when it's a bit
more temperate. I imagine some teachers would feel
similarly. I would think the only benefit of having
2.5 contiguous months would be for those who were able
to do really extended travel or those who wanted to
take courses or whatnot.
Since taking courses is required to keep your certification up, a schedule
which doesn't allow enough time to do this would make it rather tough.

In addition, for me, two weeks isn't really enough time to recharge and get
back ready to teach again-usually breaks of that length end up being pretty
hectic, because even if we aren't leaving town (and we usually are),
everything gets saved for the break, and I spend it taking pets to the vet,
getting an oil change done on the car, and everything else which doesn't get
done with two working spouses. During the summer, I actually get to
discharge stress a bit, plan for the year, and go back to school refreshed
and ready to go.


I realize this could really complicate child care arrangemnents for
people without a parent at home, though.


I'm not so sure. We have a handfull of schools
around here that are on a year-round program. The local
daycares have just adapted and provide full day care
during the breaks, just as they provide full day care
during the summer. I think the only difficulty would
be if a particular school were the only year round
school among many traditional calendar schools, such
that the community didn't adapt much.

Best wishes,
Ericka

: In addition, for me, two weeks isn't really enough time to recharge and
get
: back ready to teach again

That's why I like the "9 on/4 off" format so much. For me anyway, 4 weeks
is plenty of time to recharge. And only 9 weeks per term seems pretty easy
to get through, rather than seeming sooooooo long.
--
ColoradoSkiBum

Clisby wrote in message ...
toto wrote:


Frequent breaks that enable teachers to relax, travel, study,
and pursue other recreational activities which may reduce
stress factors.



I'd be interested to hear what teachers on the group think about this.
I would have thought a 2.5-month summer vacation would be better for
travel, study, etc. (Are there many certification-related courses you
can take in a 3-week period?)

My DH is a teacher, he works during the summer, as do all of his male
teacher friends, that I know of. His summer work is currently an
important part of our yearly income. So, this might be a problem for
some people: the vacations would have to be vacations and could not be
used to make money. However, it has already been problematic for us
that he only ever has available vacation time in the summer; I do
think it would be nice if he had time available at various times of
the year. It's a lot cheaper to do certain vacations "off-season."

Looking at it solely from my 7-year-old's standpoint - I think she'd
thrive on the 45/15 plan. She loves her school, and while she likes
summer vacation, too, she's really getting bored by the first of August.
The weather/mosquitoes are so miserable here by early August that I
can't bear to do any outside activities -

That brings up the other issue that springs immediately to my mind:
very few public schools around here are air-conditioned, despite hot
summers. I think they'd need to be air-conditioned to have any real
learning go on in the summer. (If you can't even go to the park in
some of your summer weather, can you imagine teaching or learning
calculus during it?)

Beth Kevles wrote:


Even if the kids are going to camps, summer jobs, or other great
opportunities, you don't necessarily need 2 1/2 months for the single
activity. And the younger the child, the less sense these lengthy
vacations make, since the long opportunities aren't necessarily
appropriate for children younger than, at the least, middle school.


I'll agree that *in general* such things wouldn't
affect children in elementary school, but you'd then get
a significant issue with families that had kids in both
jr high/high school and elementary school at the same
time on wildly different schedules. Also, I don't know
about some of the other activities, but Interlochen is
up to *eight* weeks long--and takes children as young
as 8yo in its junior division. Again, that obviously
applies to relatively few elite kids; however, when
you start adding all the possible worthwhile summer
programs that *do* take a long time, it does add up
and it's hard to see how those programs could adapt.
Even if they shortened the program, if everyone went
to year round schooling, their breaks would be at
different times. Also, many of these programs are staffed
by college faculty and students (and some are on college
campuses) so they are limited in the times the resources
are available.

I think there are a lot of good things about
year round schooling, but I think if it became the
norm, there would be some lost opportunities. At the
very least, there would be a really awkward transition
period.

Best wishes,
Ericka