Running head: YEAR-ROUND EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC …



Running head: YEAR-ROUND EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS

The Effects of Year-round Schools and Student Achievement

By

Mary Roberts

A paper in partial completion of course requirements for L.ADM 530/EDAD 530 – Educational Research

Fall 2007

Abstract

This paper investigated whether student achievement increases utilizing the single-track, modified year-round school calendar verses the traditional school calendar. The research demonstrated a strong connection between single-track, modified year-round schools and several indicators, including less summer learning loss, improved student achievement, and positive feedback through student/teacher/parent interviews. It was concluded that single-track, modified year-round schools have a positive impact on academic success. Therefore, research supports the premise that single-track, modified year-round schools are likely to increase student achievement.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Introduction .........................................................................................................................4

Chapter 2

Review of Literature ...........................................................................................................7

Chapter 3

Summary, Conclusions, & Implications ...........................................................................13

References .....................................................................................................................................15

The Effects of Year-round Schooling and Student Achievement

Chapter 1

In several school districts across the country there exists a growing debate regarding whether the school calendar has an impact on student learning. Many studies (Shields & Oberg, 2000; Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007; St. Gerard, 2007) have been conducted to explore the effects that year-round schools have on student achievement. More specifically, these studies have explored the connection of a variety of year-round school calendars verses the traditional school calendar and student achievement test scores, summer learning loss, and teacher/student satisfaction.

Problem Statement

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether single-track, modified year-round schools have a direct impact on student academic success. So the question raised is: Does student achievement increase with single-track, modified year-round schools verses traditional schools?

Definitions

Before a review of literature can be initiated some terms must be defined.

Year-round calendars: Typical year-round calendars, according to Stenvall and Stenvall (2001), have the following characteristics:

• Single-track year-round education provides a balanced calendar for a more continuous period of instruction.

• Students and all school personnel follow the same instruction and vacation schedule.

• Single-track year-round education does not reduce class size, nor does it allow a school to accommodate more students.

Modified, single-track systems utilizing a “45-15” school days design are defined by Kneese (2000) as:

• Providing 180 instructional days.

• Divided into four nine-week grading periods.

• With approximately fifteen days of intersession.

Multi-track year-round schedules, according to Rogers (2007) are described as:

• Often used in overcrowded urban schools in order to enroll more students than the school building was intended to house.

• Divide students and teachers into groups and assign them to one of several tracks with staggered instructional blocks and vacation periods.

Agrarian calendars or traditional schools as defined by Morris (2002), have:

• All students in a particular school district or division attending school from the middle of August until early June, or about 10 months.

• Breaks include a two-week winter break and a one-week spring break

Summer learning loss and continuous learning mode are defined according to St.Gerard (2007) as:

• The negative effect which long summer breaks is now known to have on students.

• The ability to retain information and teachers need not spend a month to six weeks review.

Limitations

This paper is limited to a review of literature linking year-round school calendars and student academic achievement. Any generalization to aspects other than the link between year-round single-track, modified school calendars and student academic achievement is beyond the scope of this paper.

Chapter 2

An increasingly popular alternative to the traditional school calendar across the country is the year-round school calendar. The National Association for Year-round Education (Ballinger, 2007) recommends using a modified schedule which contains no break lasting longer than eight weeks and allows students to remain in learning mode throughout the entire year. Research (St. Gerard, 2007) has found that students in year-round, modified, single-track schools are able to retain information and teachers need not spend a month to six weeks reviewing. In traditional schools teachers must review previously taught material when school resumes in the fall, which, in turn, reduces the number of available days for introduction of new material and skills. Researchers and educators have long known that the traditional school calendar doesn’t correlate with children’s learning patterns and the long summer break is often a hardship, and it interferes with retention of material, particularly for younger children and for students whose families cannot afford summer enrichment activities (Metzker, 2002). Within year-round schools, teachers find that students forget less over the shorter breaks than over a long summer and that they spend less time reviewing in the fall and after school holidays. However, Varner (2003) found that traditional school teachers voiced the need for their personal and students’ summer break as the main reason for continuing to teach in a traditional school while the year-round teachers seemed to center their attention more on the academic success of their students.

Indicators

Numerous researchers have found positive effects of a year round school calendar on student achievement (Varner, 2003). Research has found that less summer learning loss (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007; St. Gerard, 2007; Burkam, Ready, Lee, & LoGerfo, 2004; Varner, 2003; Greene, 2003; Cooper, 1996), improved student achievement (Varner, 2003; Bradford, 2002; Morris, 2002; Stenvall & Stenvall, 2001; Kneese, 2000; Shields & Oberg, 2000), and positive teacher/student/parent interviews (St. Gerard, 2007; Varner, 2003; Cooper, 2003; Morris, 2002; Shields & Oberg, 2000), favor the year-round calendar over the traditional calendar.

Summer Learning Loss

One of the main reasons for which school officials consider a modified schedule is for the purpose of addressing the problem of “summer learning loss.” One of the reported benefits of a year-round calendar is increased retention of knowledge due to a lack of learning loss over a lengthy summer break. In 1996, Harris M. Cooper’s study found that all students lose some of their math and spelling skills, and many lose reading skills over the period of the traditional summer break. Kneese (2000) concluded that there was an effective maintenance and improvement of the overall academic performance of students in year-round education programs in comparison to those on the traditional calendar. Maintenance has the effect of retaining what has been learned and improvement adds to the learning.

Moreover, this appears to be especially challenging for students from economically disadvantaged households (Varner, 2003). Students (urban children even more so than their non-urban peers), tend to suffer from extremely low levels of retention over the summer months (Greene, 2003). Furthermore, there is evidence that at-risk students show enhanced academic progress in year-round schools (Shields & Oberg, 2000). The national Early Childhood Longitudinal Study found that “Children from higher-SES families learn more over the summer than do their less-advantaged counterparts” (Burkam, Ready, Lee, & LoGerfo, 2004). Consequently, summer learning differences during the foundational early grades help explain achievement-dependent outcome differences across social lines in the upper grades, including the transition out of high school and, for some, into college (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007).

Academic Achievement

Student achievement research for year-round schools is contradictory. Some recent studies have found no connection between year-round schooling and improved student achievement. For example, a review of 39 studies found that modified school calendars have a small, but positive, effect on achievement (Cooper, Valentine, Charlton, & Melson, 2003). Yet in Kneese’s (2000) study, year-round students outperformed traditional students in 67.8% of the performance categories, based on thirty studies comparing the performance of year-round school students with traditional students. Stenvall’s (2001) research found that schools on balanced calendars (single track) outperformed gains recorded for traditional calendar schools at all levels when looking at the California Academic Performance Index (API) data. Varner (2003) found that test scores did not always show improvement for the year-round schools within the first year of a calendar change but achievement improved in year-round schools over periods of two, three, and even six years of study.

Intersessions are another positive advantage of year-round schools. Kneese (2000) reported that research found teachers credit the intersession with enhancing and supplementing the regular curriculum especially for the low socio-economic and high risk students; this may be due to the accessibility of immediate remediation. If a student has fallen behind, their parents may opt for the student to attend remediation sessions during the spring, fall, or winter breaks and some year-round schools provide other enrichment activities for students during intersessions (St. Gerard, 2007).

Teacher/Student/Parent Satisfaction

The main reason given by every year-round school teacher for wanting to continue to teach in a year-round school was the lack of student and teacher burnout and fatigue; other reasons also mentioned were less review time, better student retention of information, improved test scores, less discipline problems, and happier students (Varner, 2003). Vacations and breaks are few and far between with the traditional 9-month calendar resulting in lower rates of attendance and retention of knowledge (Rogers, 2007). Moreover, research by Kneese (2000) found that due to the frequency of breaks in year-round schools, teachers exhibit improved morale and motivation, less burn-out and stress, resulting in less teacher absenteeism. Varner (2003) also noted that teachers in year-round school settings were able to move through the textbook more quickly primarily due to less time reviewing thus maximizing efficiency of instruction. Schools on a year-round calendar notice higher attendance rates with their students and students are more attentive and maintain higher levels of motivation. St. Gerard (2007) found that teachers believe that the modified year-round school schedule benefits ALL students, especially non-English speaking (ESL) students, less affluent students, and special needs students.

The main adjustment that some teachers found with the year-round schedule was less preparation time between school years. Teachers need to plan class schedules before the summer break and pace them appropriately during the school year (St. Gerard, 2007). However, Shields and Oberg (2000) reported that teachers believe the year-round schedule had a positive impact regarding the way they plan and reflect about their instruction. Teachers felt the shorter blocks of time helped them be more efficient and productive when planning curriculum (Shields & Oberg, 2000). Most of the perceived challenges for teachers stemmed from research based upon multi-track schedules and not single-track modified schedules (Kneese, 2000). No matter which schedule schools adopt, the biggest resistance to year-round schools comes from the fear of change (Rasmussen, 2000). Teachers and parents with no exposure to the year-round setting are usually negatively disposed toward it. However, after a period of time to adapt, those with first-hand experience are positive and prefer year-round schedules over the traditional school year (Shields & Oberg, 2000).

Opponents to year-round schools argue that the calendar has adverse impact on child-care issues, family vacations, student employment, and extracurricular activities. However, in three studies regarding these areas, parents that were surveyed found that making arrangements with the year-round calendar were not as difficult to make as originally expected. Whereas finding childcare during brief school breaks may cause some issue for working parents, many working parents find it even more difficult to provide extended childcare during the long summer break. Some felt the year-round calendar made vacation planning more complicated, while one-half stated that it made vacations much easier to plan (Rogers, 2007). Furthermore, Bradford (2002) found that although parental vacation is something to be considered, some parents prefer a four-season vacation schedule over the agrarian schedule. Most high school students who choose to work are employed outside and not affected by the school schedule. As for athletics, in all 50 states the state athletic association has language about being enrolled in school rather than actually being in school on the day of a game. Other extra-curricular activities such as band often follow the school schedule without consequence.

James Bradford (2002) reported that after 20 years in utilization, the Buena Vista, Virginia year-round high schools’ evaluation showed an increase in student attendance during the voluntary summer session, an increase in student achievement scores to levels equal or above the national average, a decrease in local student-dropout rates when compared with the state average, and recommendations from faculty and students to continue the program.

Chapter Three

In several school districts across the country there exists a growing debate regarding whether the school calendar has an impact on student learning. Many studies (Shields & Oberg, 2000; Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007; St. Gerard, 2007) have been conducted to explore the effects that year-round schools have on student achievement. More specifically, these studies have explored the connection of a variety of year-round school calendars verses the traditional school calendar and student achievement test scores, summer learning loss, and teacher/student satisfaction.

Summary

The research reviewed in this paper suggests that year-round calendars have an impact on student achievement in a number of ways. School districts that utilize a year-round calendar have found that less summer learning loss (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson, 2007; St. Gerard, 2007; Burkam, Ready, Lee, & LoGerfo, 2004; Varner, 2003; Greene, 2003; Cooper, 1996), improved student achievement (Varner, 2003; Bradford, 2002; Morris, 2002; Stenvall & Stenvall, 2001; Kneese, 2000; Shields & Oberg, 2000), and positive teacher/student/parent interviews (St. Gerard, 2007; Varner, 2003; Cooper, 2003; Morris, 2002; Shields & Oberg, 2000), favor the year-round calendar over the traditional calendar.

Conclusion

The conclusion of this paper supports the connection between the implementation of the single-track, modified year-round school calendar and its positive impact on academic achievement. Calendar innovation is a variable that school boards and district executives can uniquely tailor to meet local needs as they seek ways to raise student achievement (Metzker, 2002). While the research presented identifies some positive effects of year-round education toward academic success, further research is recommended to clarify and support this notion.

Implications

As school leaders seek to enhance student achievement and respond positively to the broad challenge of embracing school reform, a focus on linking academic achievement for at-risk students by implementing modified or extended calendars provides a promising initiative.

References

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D.R., & Steffel Olson, L. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 167-180.

Ballinger, C. (2007). Answers to the Six Common Issues Raised by Year-Round Education.

Retrieved October 17, 2007, from .

Bradford, J. C., Jr. (2002). A nationally recognized single-track, tri-mester, block program at the high school level. San Diego, CA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Year-Round Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 469454).

Burkam, D., Ready, D., Lee, V. & LoGerfo, L. (2004). Social-class differences in summer learning between kindergarten and first grade: Model specification and estimation. Sociology of Education, 77, 1-31.

Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66, (3), 227-268.

Cooper, H., Valentine, J. C., Charlton, K., & Melson, A. (2003). The effects of modified school calendars on student achievement and on school and community attitudes. Review of Educational Research, 73, (1), 1-52.

Greene, J. P. (2003). This works: Improving urban education. Manhattan Institute, New York, NY: Center for Civic Innovation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 475872).

Hess, F. M. (2006, July 12). Summer vacation of our discontent. Washington Post. Retrieved October 4, 2007, from AR2006071100871_pf.html.

Kenning, C. (2006, July 6). Teachers see benefits in year-round schools. The Courier Journal. Retrieved October 4, 2007, from .

Kneese, C. C. (2000). Teaching in year-round schools. Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. No. ED 449123.

McMillen, B. J. (2001). A statewide evaluation of academic achievement in year-round schools. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 67-75.

Metzker, B. (2002). School calendars. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Digest No. ED 466007).

Morris, R. N. (2002). A case study on the perspectives of an optional k-5 year-round/multi-age program in Virginia. Virginia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 479350).

Rasmussen, K. (2000). Year-round education: Time to learn, time to grow. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 42, (2).

Rogers, M. R. (2007). Year-round education: A review of literature. Chattanooga, TN: Presented to the faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

Shields, C. M. & Oberg, S. L. (2000). Year-round schooling: Reviewing what we know, from inquiry to practice. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 468092).

St. Gerard, V. (2007). Year-round schools look better all the time. Education Digest, 72, (8), 56-58.

Stenvall, J. T. & Stenvall, M. J. (2001). An analysis of 2000 api scores for California public schools on traditional and year-round calendars at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. San Diego, CA: National Association for Year-Round Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 462742).

Varner, L. W. (2003). Instructional review time in year round and traditional calendar schools. Biloxi, MS: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 482688).

Year-round schooling. (2004). Education Week. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from .

Related Literature

Scoring Rubric Research

Name: __Mary Roberts______ Final Grade: 80/80 = 100% Date: _11/29/07___

OUTCOME: Students will gather supporting information and communicate in writing, for the purposes of informing, persuading, and /or giving opinion regarding an approved topic of their choice.

TASK: The student will complete a related literature paper focusing on an area in which they have an interest.

STANDARDS: The levels at which students perform the task.

Title page/Abstract/Table of Contents

|In progress 1 |Proficient 3 |Advanced 5 |Self-Score |Instructor Score |

| | | | | |

|Item(s) missing or |Items present with 4 or less|Items present and complete |5 |5 |

|inaccurate. |errors. |with no errors. | | |

Introductory Chapter

|In progress 1 |Proficient 3 |Advanced 5 |Self-Score |Instructor Score |

| | | | | |

|Foundation for study need |Foundation for study need is|Foundation for study need is| |5 |

|not established. |established. |established. | | |

| | | | | |

|Problem not identified or |Problem introduced or |Problem introduced or | | |

|stated. |stated. |stated. |5 |5 |

| | | | | |

|Delimitations and/or |Delimitations and/or |Delimitations and/or | | |

|definitions are unclear or |definitions are unclear or |definitions are clear and | |5 |

|not concise. |not concise |concise | | |

Literature Review Chapter

|In progress 1 |Proficient 3 |Advanced 5 |Self-Score |Instructor Score |

| | | | | |

|Foundation for study need |Foundation for study need is|Foundation for study need is| |5 |

|not established. |established. |established. | | |

| | | | | |

|Problem not identified or |Problem introduced or |Problem introduced or | | |

|stated. |stated. |stated. |5 |5 |

| | | | | |

|Literature review is |Literature review is |Literature review is | | |

|inadequate not presenting |adequate presenting current |exemplary presenting current| |5 |

|current data. |data. |data and diverse | | |

| | |perspectives. | | |

Organization (Chronological Patterns, Comparison & Contrast, Cause-Effect, Description, Analysis)

|In progress 1 |Proficient 3 |Advanced 5 |Self-Score |Instructor Score |

| | | | |5 |

|Lacks introduction, |Introduction directs the |Introduction directs the | | |

|significant part of the body|development of the paper |development of the paper | | |

|and/or conclusion. |with transitions guiding the|with effective use of | | |

| |reader through. |transitions among the | | |

| | |introduction, body, and | | |

| | |conclusion. | | |

| |Paragraphs signal the major | |5 | |

|Paragraphs do not clearly |divisions of thought and |Paragraphs signal the major | | |

|explore topics. |sentences flow. |divisions of thought and | |5 |

| | |sentences flow with ideas in| | |

| | |a logical sequence. | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

Conventions (Mechanics and Usage)

|In progress 1 |Proficient 3 |Advanced 5 |Self-Score |Instructor Score |

| | | | | |

|Little evidence of editing |Evidence of editing but |Strong evidence of editing | |5 |

|(10 or more errors). |6-10 errors. |(0-5 errors). | | |

| | | | | |

|Illegible/verb tense | | |5 |5 |

|errors, spelling, |Legible with verb tense, |Exemplary with verb tense, | | |

|possessive errors/pages not|spelling, and possessives |spelling, and possessives | | |

|numbered. |correct/pages are properly |correct/pages are properly | | |

| |numbered. |numbered. | | |

Summary, Conclusions, Implications Chapter

|In progress 1 |Proficient 3 |Advanced 5 |Self-Score |Instructor Score |

| | | | | |

|Introductory paragraph |Introductory paragraph |Introductory paragraph states | |5 |

|fails to state |states significance of the|significance of the study and | | |

|significance of the study |study and reviews problem.|reviews problem. | | |

|or review problem. | | | | |

| |Summary reviews major |Summary reviews major ideas of | | |

|Summary does not review |ideas of the literature. |the literature clearly stating |5 |5 |

|major ideas of the | |diverse perspectives. | | |

|literature. |Conclusions are justified |Logical conclusions are | | |

| |by the analysis of the |justified by the analysis and | | |

|Conclusions are not |literature. |weight of the literature. | | |

|justified by the analysis | | | |5 |

|of the literature. | | | | |

References

|In progress 1 |Proficient 3 |Advanced 5 |Self-Score |Instructor Score |

| | | | | |

|Less than 8 references |8-11 references are cited |12-15 references are cited | |5 |

|cited providing |providing documentation |providing appropriate | |(One citation not |

|documentation for the |for the conclusions. |documentation for the | |italicized) |

|conclusions. | |conclusions. |5 | |

| |APA format has been | | | |

|APA format has been |followed with no more than|APA format has been followed | | |

|followed with no more than|3 references older than 7 |with no more than 2 references | |5 |

|5 references older than 7 |years. |older than 5 years. | | |

|years. | | | | |

Mary,

I have enjoyed reading this literature review and it is clear that you have a good understanding of the literature and can communicate very clearly, the findings from your investigation. Too frequently we see administrators unable to communicate clearly or we see messages which are filled with many errors. You have written a nearly flawless extensive paper and it is my hope that you will be able to use this investigation to influence some aspect of your work with students or to influence your campus and district.

This is excellent and I request your permission to use this as an anchor paper (example) for others who will enroll in the Research course. Well done 80/80 for the paper resulting in a final grade for the course of A.

Thank you,

Chuck Manges

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download