Mallorydaytonbportfolio.files.wordpress.com



Year Round Schools: An Effective Model?A Critique of LiteratureMallory DaytonEDAD 6580IntroductionTraditionally, public schools in America run between fall and late spring, taking an extended break for the summer season. Changing times and rankings have forced policy makers to reconsider a once hotly debated concept: year round schools. Currently, schools with greater school-level autonomy have increased “flexibility in governance that has enabled educators to reconfigure schedules, staffing, and budgeting, often in ways that can allow for substantially more learning hours for all their students” (Farbman and Goldberg, 2015). Public schools, who answer to federal and state regulations and rely on government funding have considerably less freedom to make these kinds of choices.In the 46th Annual Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, 2014 results reported that four in ten Americans felt the school year should be longer and that summer break should be shorter, compensating with longer breaks throughout the school year. In the same survey, three in ten Americans felt that the school day should be longer (Bushaw and Calderon, 2014). This is a vast contrast to the 2007 survey which indicated that 96% of respondents believed that increasing instructional time was an effective solution to closing the achievement gap. My personal interest in this topic stems from seeing the discrepancies amongst my students each September as they reacquaint themselves with the routine and demands of school. The idea of “summer slide” and the need for review of content and (re)establishing routines and expectations takes up much of the available learning time during the first month of school. I want to learn more about the benefits and drawbacks of the year-round school model as opposed to the traditional school year that I experienced in my own schooling and that I teach in currently. This paper will explore literature supporting the notions of both year round- and traditional-school year. Literature OverviewSupport of Year-Round SchoolsIn a written argument defending Year Round Schools, a school district in British Columbia cited both “summer learning loss” and “issues of poverty” as two key aspects that would be addressed with Year Round Schools. In this report, Naylor and BCTF (2012) state, “if a society could address issues of poverty, and reduce it, the payback is huge in terms of better educational and health outcomes, reduced expenditure in social services, and lower levels of incarceration.” Utilizing the Year Round School model allows students whom experience little-to-no summer learning at home to receive instruction frequently, and without a large gap in learning during the summer months. Cost is another key gain in the Year Round School model. Oxnard School District in California argues that, “No other innovation in education in the United States has as much potential for improving education and reducing costs as the year-round operation of schools” (Brekke and Oxnard School District, 1990). Brekke and Oxnard School District (1990) goes on to argue that we remain in the “inertia of tradition” for the past 75 years and, in general, the public has a hard time seeing the overall net gains in the operational cost gains of Year Round schools. This source fails to point out that the costs of operation are only lowered if a year round school is operating on multiple tracks, meaning multiple sections of students are scheduled simultaneously. With four tracks, schools can increase enrollment by one third (Wu and Stone, 2010).Year Round Schools is not a novel concept. In fact “it is an old idea that is gaining new ground in schools across the country. Nearly 1.5 million students in more than 25 states now attend public elementary and secondary schools that function on a year-round schedule. The reasons why these schools have abandoned the traditional calendar in favor of Year Round Education vary from district to district” (Gee, 1997). Research supporting blocked schedules and looping offer many of the same benefits cited by Gee in support of Year Round Schools, including cost effectiveness, stronger relationships, increased time on task, and greater capacity of schools. When families opted their students into the year round school year model, it was found that overall attitudes about the model were very positive, while this positive approval does bode well for the year-round school model, we must remember that this was an opt-in program, which may have swayed the data. In the TIMSS assessment (Long, 2014), measuring math that is put out by the United States Department of Education, a significant increase in scores of students participating in a year-round school year was seen when results were filtered by low socio-economic status. This data supports the idea of reducing the effects of the “summer slide” for the students who do not have access to quality learning experiences or resources over the months of summer break. Success in this model has been realized by the KIPP (Knowledge is Power) schools as well as the Armistad Academy (part of the Achievement First schools). Both schools follow the year-round model as well as share other common traits. Both schools have longer school days and a longer school year, occasional weekend classes as well as afterschool opportunities to deepen their knowledge. These schools are prime examples of the increase in achievement that can occur when the hours of learning are increased. Very little reliable data was found studying the effects or comparisons of public schools following either the year round- or traditional school-year models.I appreciated Long’s perspective of the conflicting interpretations of the data available. Inconsistencies amongst researchers analysis of both the TIMSS and PISA studies leave much to be desired as far as a concrete answer to this debate. Gee is clearly one who interprets the data in a very positive light for the year-round model. Gee fails to incorporate the very real drawbacks that surface when the traditional school year model is abandoned. I appreciate Brekke and Oxnard School District’s point about the resistance we have to change. I think that this perspective, which focuses more on the fiscal and economic side, does an adequate job of weighing the pros and cons to the year-round model. Support of Traditional School YearIn an aforementioned argument for Year Round Schools by a school district in British Columbia, counterarguments pointed out flaws in the idea. Supporters of the Traditional School Year model argue that attention and resources should be directed toward ending poverty, rather than simply applying a hypothetical band-aid to the issue for the children who are students of the Year Round Schools. Naylor and BCTF (2012) questioned “Why are there so many initiatives to ameliorate the effects of poverty rather than addressing the issue of poverty?” Traditional School Year proponents argued that there are minimal showings of significant gains in a Year Round School model as opposed to a Traditional School Year model. The argument named the achievement increases as “trivial” and stated that it was “hardly a rousing endorsement” for such a monumental shift in practice (Naylor and BCTF, 2012).Blazer and Miami-Dade County Public Schools (2010) suggests that the quality of the time, as opposed to the quantity of time, spent in schools results in increases in achievements. They argues that “only when time is used effectively will adding more of it result in improved academic outcomes” (Blazer and Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 2010). They sum that if “time is not already well utilized, increasing the number of days students attend school does not produce substantial gains in student achievement” (Blazer and Miami-Dade County Public Schools, 2010). Schools who do use time effectively are credited with increased student achievement when transitioned to a Year Round School model. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) administers a global assessment to students focusing on real-world problem solving that is not connected to a specific curriculum. The results from this assessment are inconclusive. While some nations who score very well (Spain, Hong Kong, Netherlands), the hours students spend in the classroom varies greatly. Similarly, the countries who score poorly (Brazil, Indonesia, Chile) spend a similar number of hours in the classroom to their high achieving counterparts. The data correlations between time spent in the classroom and achievement is inconclusive, thus it is difficult for rally support for the year round school model with such data (Long, 2014). In my research, conflicting interpretations of the available data surfaced. Some view high achievement and time in class in isolation and deem year-round schools an effective model. Others, view the data holistically and interpret the data to say that there is zero effect between time in class and achievement. Stoops (2007) agues that hours spent on instruction do not always correlate to increased achievement. Top rated Hong Kong/China spends an average of 5.0 hours of math instruction per week and 177 hours of math instruction per year compared to the United States who’s scores fall in 27th place with an average of 4.7 hours per week and 169 hours per year spent on math instruction. Finland, ranked second, spends an average of 3.0 hours per week and 114 hours per year on math instruction (Stoops, 2007). Clearly, there are other factors at play.While I find Naylor and BCTF’s interpretation of the year-round schools being a “band-aid” for poverty to be somewhat true, I feel that a fair chance for the benefits of the year-round model to students who would otherwise not have access to educational resources year-round did not occur. I found Stoops’ analysis of the inconclusiveness of the data to align with my own thoughts on the matter. Overall in my research, I found that the comparisons made between achievement in either the year-round or traditional school year model to vary quite extensively. Selectively comparing high achieving year-round school results with the low achieving traditional school year results does not yield high quality or conclusive data. Rather, interpreting the differences and accounting for disparities in tests, curriculum, and the definition of “instruction” lead to a balanced interpretation by Long. ConclusionThe qualitative data surrounding the Year Round Schools that I have gathered offers resounding affirmations of this model. The quantitative data, sourced from both the TIMSS and PISA results, regarding student achievement in year round schools offers less solid results based on the fact that school performance makes little gains if instructional time was of sub-par quality. Schools that offered top notch instructional effectiveness experience substantial gains when transitioned to a Year Round School model as opposed to the Traditional School year. While there are merits and drawbacks of both Year Round School and Traditional School Year models, as qualitatively described by Stoops, Gee, and Wu and Stone, I feel that, if done correctly, the Year Round School offers the potential for the largest gains in a variety of aspects which all contribute to a well functioning school. However, I feel that the year-round model should only be used once American public schools have been able to prove effective use of the hours they are presently allotted. Creating a shift, such as this, will only be deemed acceptable and sound if there is data to support it. Year Round Schools provide students with stability in routine and in resources. Students who are living in poverty or less than desirable conditions have a consistent and stable environment to spend their days. Academically, Year Round Schools reduce the “summer slide” and eliminate the need to spend as much time reviewing concepts that were lost over a multi-month break from learning. While the argument can be made that not all schools use the instructional hours they already have effectively, I find it prudent to separate the two issues and work to find consistency in the quality of our schools. If implemented correctly with effective instruction, Year Round Schools hold the potential to increase student achievement and create operationally sound schools. ReferencesBlazer, C., & Miami-Dade County Public Schools, R. S. (2010). Extended School Year. Information Capsule. Volume 0910. Research Services, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Retrieved from: , N. R., & Oxnard School District, C. (1990). YRE: A Break from Tradition That Makes Educational and Economic Sense!. Retrieved from: , W. J., & Calderon, V. J. (2014). Americans Put Teacher Quality on Center Stage: The 46th Annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools. Part II. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(2), 49-59. Farbman, D., Davis, J., Goldberg, D., Rowland, J., Education Commission of the, S., & National Center on Time &, L. (2015). Learning Time in America: Trends to Reform the American School Calendar. A Snapshot of Federal, State and Local Action. Spring 2015 Update. Education Commission Of The States, Retrieved from: , W. D. (1997). The Copernican Plan and Year-Round Education. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(10), 793-96.Long, D. A. (2014) Cross-National Educational Inequalities and Opportunities to Learn: Conflicting Views of Instructional Time. Educational Policy, Volume 28 (3). Retrieved from: , C., & British Columbia Teachers' Federation (BCTF), (. (2012). Revisiting the Issue of Year-Round Schools. BCTF Research Report. Section V. 2012-EI-02. British Columbia Teachers' Federation, Retrieved from: , T. (2007). Better Instruction, Not More Time. John Locke Foundation Spotlight No. 328, August 1, 2007, Retrieved from: , A. D., & Stone, J. E. (2010). Does Year Round Schooling Affect the Outcome and Growth of California's API Scores?. Journal Of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 10(1), 79-97. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download