True year-round schooling would be counterproductive, because students and teachers would get so burned out that they couldn't function at their peak. What most people refer to, when they advocate year-round schooling, is actually spreading the schooling out throughout the year, with shorter breaks at various points during the year - rather than one long summer break. According to its advocates, the advantage is that less is forgotten, so less time is spent in review - allowing students to learn more over time. I find it interesting that schools in California do this, while those in Wisconsin and Minnesota do not. Ironically, California's average student test scores rank far below Wisconsin and Minnesota, so I'm not so sure that this theory holds up in the real world. The reality is that learning is much more complex than we can yet understand, and is influenced by many variables. To expect year-round schooling to be the "silver bullet" that will magically transform student success levels, is unrealistic and unjustified. I say, let the kids keep their summer vacations. Families need this time together, and kids will still learn what they need to learn.
2007-12-10 12:31:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by legendofslipperyhollow 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
i think its good. i go to a not year round school. whatever you want to call it. and i don't mind it.
i think year round school keeps the school in better shape because it is used all year round instead of sitting around. and i think having some time off in spring and winter and fall and summer would be nice so its not always hot when you have off.
i love winter so having some time off to do whatever i wanted would be nice instead of being stuck inside because i hate the heat.
2007-12-10 20:13:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We home school, and that is how we approach learning; year round.
We take break when it fits our families schedule.
For schools this would work much better as well, since children who have breaks through out the year do much better, have less sick time, and retain much more.
Teachers would not have to review so much in the beginning; this would mean less wasted time, so they could focus on new material.
2007-12-10 20:27:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by busymom 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm for it. At least 11 months. We have to try to catch up to the rest of most of the civilized world.
2007-12-10 20:14:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Matt D 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
i don't think it's a very good idea. not only do students need a break, but teachers do too. what more can you teach year round anyway?
2007-12-10 20:10:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by ℓɐughɐbℓǝchιck™ (: 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I won't, I won't, I won't teach full year BUT I would teach through the summer so I could have winter off to go skiing!
2007-12-10 21:52:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by atheleticman_fan 5
·
0⤊
1⤋