Home › Forums › West Seattle Schools › Year Round Education
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 22, 2009 at 3:26 am #670037
JoBParticipantfull tilt…
i agree that there is a lot of bad execution… i am not advocating teaching to standardized tests but giving every child an equal education with equal resources…
i know.. easier said than done.
June 22, 2009 at 2:32 pm #670038
rockhillsMemberI lived (and worked) in a district several years ago that was on the year-round system. Their model was three months on, one month off, so that families had a one-month vacation, three times a year. Days were reserved for professional development/planning just prior to each trimester. There were three rotating ‘tracks’ so that one track was always off. There was also a ‘traditional’ track, which all of the high schools and a percentage of the younger students followed. I’m assuming that was done to accommodate sports, internships, and college calendars.
Everyone had the traditional major breaks (winter holidays, spring break)off.
The model had a lot of benefits, including a reduction in the need for classroom space. Another benefit was the ability to vacation outside of peak seasons/rates. The theory was that there would be less regression following shorter breaks. I have no idea whether the data actually supported that or not.
The problem arose when siblings within a family were on different tracks–a child care and vacation scheduling nightmare. Families could request a track, and the district would try to keep siblings on the same track, but it was not always possible.
I never heard about visitation issues–it seems to me that competent lawyers and judges would take that into account when negotiating.
I’m not advocating for or against, particularly; just wanted to let people know my experience of the pros and cons.
June 22, 2009 at 7:36 pm #670039
beachdrivegirlParticipant“I totally understand the desire to make sure everyone is up to par-a main reason I went into teaching is because in college I realized how vastly inequitable high schools across the country are. But in the struggle to standardize you loose the creativity and personalization that actually makes a difference. The research backs up that one of the biggest factors in student success is having a personal connection with at least one adult at school. We get that connection by altering classes to meet the needs of students, thereby demonstrating to them that we care about them and whether or not they are learning, not just cranking out lessons and grades. So be careful. We saw in Bellevue some of the garbage that school districts come up with to try and standardize. Good intentions, bad execution. ” -Full Tilt.
I think that is most of the most accurate assesments I have heard about our school system. Although, I am not a teacher myself, I am surronded by an amazing family all very involved in the public educaiton system. In my immediate family alone i am surronded by 100+ years of educational experience.
June 22, 2009 at 11:01 pm #670040
maplesyrupParticipantAs I said earlier, the most important factor to me would be whether year-round schooling provides a better education. Looks like the evidence toward that is inconclusive so far.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070811151449.htm
June 23, 2009 at 5:37 pm #670041
JoBParticipantmaplesyrup…
thanks for the links.. they intrigued me so i searched further.
i was very frustrated by the lack of current information.. although what i could find relying on the standardized tests our kids have been taking.. would indicate that there might be more evidence of improvement than the dated studies would indicate…
from:
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin137.shtml
“It’s a more flexible, relaxed, and effective way to educate kids,” added Smotherman. “One major new study shows that 54 of 64 school variables — attendance, grades, discipline, test scores, and so on — are better with a year-round calendar than with traditional calendars. Overall, year-round education offers schools an exciting, almost cost-free opportunity to improve quality time between teachers and students.”
you have to scroll down.. the article is at the bottom of the page…
In an article dated Apr 22, 2009 about the Chicago school system, they idnicate that test results there show improvement in year round schools..
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/apr/22/local/chi-cps-yearroundapr22
This 2008 article also indicates test scores increase in year round schooling…
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/41
I looked for the research cited in one of your articles to examine protocol.. but was unable to find it. perhaps it hasn’t been published yet. i wondered if he examined one track year round schools or multitrack year round schools… there seems to be some consensus that one track schools do better…
i also looked for the research cited in the education world article.. all i could find were quotations citing the research.
i did find this though.. and if you are willing to slog through it there are quite a few research citations including web addresses to the research..
http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/bibs/extschyr.html
interesting subject… but i am done reading now:)
June 23, 2009 at 9:04 pm #670042
datamuseParticipantThe research referenced in the ScienceDaily link is a conference paper. It was published in the American Sociological Association’s collected papers from the 2007 meeting. (The paper itself is 59 pages long, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t take the time to read it right now, but you can read it yourself here. (Note that link leads to a PDF.)
A lot of the sources cited in maplesyrup’s second link are academic journals, which means you’d need to visit an academic library to access them.
June 24, 2009 at 9:41 am #670043
JoBParticipantdatamuse..
it takes a long time to read that paper.. and in the end i found it pretty confusing…
In the first place.. it tracks only kindergarten and 1st grade.
in the second place.. it doesn’t use raw data but extrapolates what a child’s core would have been based on an average learning rate based on an average of increase… and then further muddies the water with other extrapolations which supposedly cancel the incompatibilities in the data.
it tracked only reading and math and threw out reading because a much higher proportion of students in year round schools couldn’t read.. or speak english when they entered school.. but assumed a lack of language competence wouldn’t affect math scores… or the ability of the students to increase their math scores..
and i didn’t see where it distinguished between single track and multitrack year round schools.
in addition, it is obvious from the comments section of the paper and the number of totally irrelevant observations that the researcher was biased against year round schools to begin with.
this paper may be a statistician’s dream.. but even i could make the argument for why it is not an accurate analysis of school performance.
thanks for supplying the link… i love looking at the source… you learn so much that way.
June 25, 2009 at 5:34 am #670044
SpeakLoudMemberInteresting that even the research that is about education is incomplete and not ‘real’ data or evidence. Regardless of the ‘research’ what it comes down to for me is common sense. A year round schedule as I see it is not the same amount of days but more-that would be the point. But if you want to use research there is lots to say that full day kindergarten is dramatically more effective than half day.
>>Hough and Bryde (1996) looked at student achievement data for 511 children enrolled in half-day and all-day kindergarten programs in 25 classrooms. Children in the all-day programs scored higher on the achievement test than those in half-day programs on every item tested. <<
http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Recent_Research_All/
Perhaps testing could be our next topic???
June 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm #670045
JoBParticipantSpeakLoud…
it’s a real catch 22, isn’t it.
Testing has led to teaching for test results because it is linked to federal funding…
however, without standardized testing we have no way to adequately compare educational standards from school to school..
and tieing testing to funds is what caused schools to spend the money necessary to test and comply :(
compound that with the results of standardized testing being only one of the outcome measures of the success of a school system and it becomes very difficult to compare one system with another.
i agree that we are in need of more school days if we expect to keep up with the educational excellence in the rest of the world and maintain our competitive edge…
and year round schooling with regular breaks makes the most sense for delivering extra school days…
although multi-track year round schooling might give us the most use of our buildings.. it also poses the greatest obstacle to maintenance of those facilities… and the most disruption of family life when all family members are not on the same track with the same time off.
I am in favor of year round schooling with regular breaks to allow teachers time for catching up and education and vacation and to allow children time for unstructured activity and vacations with their parents… and for at risk students to get timely opportunities for supplemental education.
nationally standardized school breaks would also facilitate family gatherings for those whose extended families often don’t live in the same district.. or state.. or on the same coast:)
just as nationally standardized testing that is not tied to school funding could lead to more widespread educational excellence, a renewed respect for high school diplomas and thus reduced need and costs for secondary education and a work force that has the basic competency required to continually re-educate itself as the market adapts.
If we are going to pay for education, we should get the best education for our children that out money can buy.. and we are a long way from accomplishing that.
June 25, 2009 at 8:02 pm #670046
datamuseParticipantOne man’s common sense is another man’s madness…which is why we have research. I think one reason the research has yet to reach definitive consensus is that there are too many variables: school systems, teachers, and students vary widely. (I once had a summer job analyzing standardized test scores. This was a test administered within a single state. Even there, the variety across a single district was pretty astounding.)
SpeakLoud, there is no research cited in that article that is more recent than 2000. That’s practically antique. The article itself isn’t dated so maybe it’s from 2001 or something. Anyway, I’m not sure you can conclude from an article on half-day versus full-day for five-year-olds that year-round for K through 12 is definitely the best way to go. Maybe it is–I’m not a teacher and don’t have kids, so I have no horse in this race–but I’d want more recent and more pertinent evidence.
June 26, 2009 at 1:07 am #670047
JoBParticipantdatamuse..
the paper that everyone is quoting compared half day kindergarten programs in a year round schools that were most likely multi-track (the less successful form of year round schooling) with the progress of children enrolled in full day traditional year kindergarten programs…
although that factor was supposedly “accounted for” .. along with several others.. including widely disparate socioeconomic classes in the school systems studied…
that factor alone would definately affect the outcome of research comparing the two school systems.
I am left wondering why the researcher in Ohio chose year-round school programs that were mostly west coast when the Chicago school system offered a more comparable demographic to the traditional system schools he chose…
the biggest problem with letting the research speak on this subject is that there doesn’t seem to be much current research at all… in spite of the existence of ample testing data due to mandated standardized testing… and what is available seems to start with a biased premise…
they set out to prove a point instead of explore the evidence…
of course.. most research does that to some extent… which leads to the fatal flaw in depending entirely upon research conclusions without reading both the protocols and the data.
makes for good headlines tho ;-)
June 26, 2009 at 5:34 am #670048
SpeakLoudMemberLet face it friends-you can’t make everyone happy! There will always be someone who dosn;t agree, or thinks it’s too good to be true or that it just dosn’t work for. Can we say the current system is really working for anyone? (don;t answer that-I know it’s working for someone!) Yet it is familiar-it’s what we know and there is safety in that. No matter what we do-and we MUST DO SOMETHING-it’s going to piss someone off. The trick then is how do you piss off the least amount of people :)
June 26, 2009 at 2:17 pm #670049
JoBParticipantSpeakloud…
I think pissing off the least amount of people with the most influence is what got us where we are…
Something clearly needs to change since the USA is no longer anywhere near the top of the charts when it comes to education… and it is going to take a well educated work force to meet coming challenges.
June 26, 2009 at 6:25 pm #670050
beachdrivegirlParticipantTeachers get the cut, but sports stay, this is what our education system is about:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=6884949
June 26, 2009 at 6:36 pm #670051
hopeyParticipantOh come on.
“Sports are surviving with the help of an $800,000 insurance settlement, fundraisers, and a $200 per student athlete donation.”
It seems safe to assume there is something about the insurance settlement which prevents that money from being applied to teacher’s salaries rather than sports programs.
Where is the insurance settlement money to pay for teachers? Where are the fundraisers and donations to pay for teachers? Right. There aren’t any. Therefore there isn’t sufficient funding for the teachers, but there is funding for sports.
It’s an odd situation, I agree, but let’s apply a little critical thinking instead of just jumping to conclusions. I don’t think that particular school board in that particular situation could have made a different choice.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.