Special Focus

Education, Politics, and the School Calendar

Volume 7 / Issue 4 / Summer 2007

Few issues have stirred as much controversy recently as school calendar reform. In school board meetings and district forums across the country, educators, parents, and community leaders debate the educational, social, and financial impacts of year-round and traditional calendars. Current credible research on the academic merits gives year-round schools a slight edge, though much of the controversy seems to be emotionally and politically charged.

The traditional calendar was devised to serve an agrarian society. Traditionally, school began after Labor Day and ended in late May or early June so that older children could help harvest the crops grown by farming families. In the early 1900s a few year-round schools popped up in urban areas but dwindled during the Great Depression. Since the end of World War II, the country has become less agrarian and the traditional calendar less essential to family circumstances.

The nation has seen an increase in the availability of year-round schools, particularly at the elementary level, over the past thirty years. According to the National Association for Year-Round Education (NAYRE), over two million American children attended year-round schools in the 2006-2007 academic year. Despite the recent surge in year-round options, the traditional calendar persists in more than 90 percent of America’s public and private schools.

Some of the opposition to year-round schooling results from a misunderstanding of what “year-round schooling” actually means. Students on a year-round calendar do not attend school all year. In fact, they are enrolled for the same number of days as students on a traditional calendar (180 to 200 days a year in most states), but in year-round, the traditional ten-week summer vacation is divided into smaller increments and dispersed throughout the year, often with a longer, four- to five-week break in the summer. Typically, year-round students have a nine-week uninterrupted school session, followed by a three-week break, or intersession, before the next nine-week session begins.

The National Education Commission on Time and Learning advocates the year-round schedule as the best solution for overcoming the phenomenon known as summer learning loss, according to School Calendar Reform, Learning in All Seasons (Rowland and Littlefield Education, 2006). Research indicates that all students lose a significant amount of factual and procedural information over the protracted summer vacation: approximately 2.6 months of grade-level equivalency in mathematics for all students, and nearly 3 months of grade-level equivalency in reading for low-income students. The cumulative effect is a widening achievement gap between high to middle income students and low income students, states research by the center for summer learning at John Hopkins University School of Education.

Collecting accurate and credible data on the performance of students in the year-round calendar over time is relatively young. The balance of this new information points to a slight though growing academic advantage for all children who attend year-round schools, most notably for those children from low socioeconomic households. The authors of Year-Round Schooling: Promises and Pitfalls (Scarecrow, 2000) attribute the advantage to decreased summer learning loss; less time spent reviewing previously learned materials; more immediate opportunities during the three-week intersession periods for remediation or for enrichment and academic challenge; less reported burnout for teachers and students resulting in greater overall teacher, student, and parent satisfaction; and shifts in programs and pedagogical approaches that accompany the shift to year-round calendars. Other advantages include higher attendance rates, less vandalism, and an overall more positive attitude reported among students, parents, and educators.

The most educationally sound year-round calendar is the single-track plan where all students at a given school follow the same school and vacation schedule. In addition to the educational advantages listed above, single-track year-round schedules can be coordinated to reflect the needs of individual communities, thus building a stronger school-community alliance. While most often implemented at the elementary and middle school levels, single-track is the more logical year-round choice for high schools, because it lends itself to subject area teaching units; offers immediate remediation, special interest, and academically challenging opportunities during intersession periods; and does not complicate the class and vacation schedule with conflicting extracurricular and sports schedules. Moreover, single-track year-round implementation does not require additional financial allocations for facilities, materials, and personnel.

The multi-track year-round schedule is almost always a fiscal implementation. A typical multi-track school has four different groups of students rotating through a facility on four different schedules so that one group is always on vacation while three groups are in session. The multi-track schedule allows the same facility to serve twenty-five percent more students than a single-track or traditional calendar would allow, slowing the need for new construction. It also facilitates shared resources and team teaching approaches. While the academic advantages are the same as those for single-track, there are a few logistical disadvantages: facility cleaning and repairs must occur while students are using the building, administrators report increased stress and work load, and communities report a reduced sense of school unity.

The most common objection to a shift from traditional to year-round schooling comes from families with children who would be assigned to different schedules. Most year-round schools are elementary schools; a few are middle schools; and a miniscule number are high schools. Many high schools have not converted to year round, particularly to the multi-track year round, because of scheduling problems extracurricular activities such as sports, music, and drama. These difficulties include students on intersession having to attend practices and events. Also, most sporting events involve coordination with schools in other districts; the traditional calendar offers the easiest coordination.

Scheduling family activities and vacations becomes difficult and frustrating when younger children are on a year-round schedule and older ones in a traditional plan. Many families who rely on high school students for childcare during the summer must scramble for short-term childcare throughout the year. Although many local parks and recreations departments, YMCAs, and camps have adapted their programs to accommodate year-round students, consistent childcare can prove problematic for many working parents.

While family time and consistent childcare are important considerations, much of the controversy is emotionally driven by some people who simply resist change of any kind or others, particularly the more affluent, who reminisce about their childhood summer vacations and wish to provide similar experiences for their own children.
Emotions also run high in areas where housing development has outpaced infrastructure improvement due to rapidly increasing populations. The political ramifications that accompany suggestions of impact fees, bond referendums, and increased taxes to educate a given district’s exploding student population makes the situation more complex and more volatile. Add to that the unique needs of individual areas, such as those where tourism or agriculture are leading economic forces, and any discussion of altering the school calendar can polarize a community.

Local boards of education and administrative units face the tough challenge of providing the best possible educational opportunities for all children and of adequately financing those opportunities. Often, the multi-track year-round calendar provides the best educational and fiscal solution. Many districts are able to provide families with a choice, and families should certainly choose the option that best suits their own educational and family needs. Many parents, however, continue to arm themselves with misinformation, demand a traditional calendar, and resist helping to bear the financial burden of new school construction.

School calendar reform involves more than simply redistributing vacation and instructional time. Much of the data is biased both in favor of and in opposition to year-round schooling; much is over ten years old, so it does not reflect the long-term academic gains or losses for either calendar. In order to raise the level of civic discourse, concerned citizens should look for credible research sponsored by colleges and universities; study the body of data, not just the data that supports their position; avoid pushing for special interests at the expense of the best educational opportunities for all children; look realistically at the costs involved; and listen to the concerns of the community at large.

—Sarah Boone, MA, MFA

Sarah Boone holds a master’s degree in teaching and is certified in gifted education. She has an MFA in creative writing, which she teaches at North Carolina State University.