Cutting Summer Break NOOOOOOO

[Hammer]

No, I'm not saying this right, I guess. If you're a school in the voucher system, you accept a voucher. Period. They're all redeemable from the government for the exact same amount.

So you are saying that all schools would charge the same price? I can't see that happening. Let me try and give an example which may better explain my point:

School A currently charges a tuition of $5000 (yes I know that figure is very low; I'm just using it for an example). The government decides to have a voucher system which gives $5000 per year, per child. School A decides to raise its tuition to $10,000 so that only those who were already paying $5000 to attend can go to the school.

[HollyB]

I've read this entire thread, but am just now commenting. So my points are made in no particular order:

Re: Public Funding for the Arts:
There are many studies that suggest a foundation in the arts (music, art, drama) enhance a students understanding in core areas. Music helps with math, knowledge of art helps with the study of history, and so on. I think suggestions that the public should not fund these subjects for a "few" students are short sighted. Are you making the same suggestion for sports, vocational training, foreign language, etc.? A well-rounded curriculum exists because students learn in different ways. Having different activities available gives you the best chance of hitting a students learning style. As has been pointed out, one-size-fits-all does not work in schools. We should be expanding the program offerings as much as we can afford, not contracting them.

Re: longer school days and longer calendar year
There are indeed studies that show students who attend school for longer than the 180 days currently used by the American school system do better than many of our students. But I'd be happy if we hit the 180 days. School districts allow teacher in service days/parent-teacher conference days, and half days to count. Studies show that most school districts get in somewhere between 150 and 170 actual instruction days. I know our school district sits at about 164. Take out testing days as well and I would bet, most kids are getting less than 160 days of instruction per year. Let's change that. 180 full days in the classroom plus a week for testing. Teachers should get their in service days, but not at the expense of a teaching day.

As for a longer school year, I think spreading those 180 days out over the calendar year would work well for retaining learning. All schools have to do it for it to work, however. There was a push to move the high schools to year round here, but they can't do it because it messes with the athletic schedule. Someone made the point that it would cause havoc with tourist economies. It would shift the timing of tourism, but I don't think it would hurt it in the long run.

And for a longer school day, I'm for that as long as it has an accompanying drop in homework. There are good studies that show that homework does more to widen the learning gap than eliminate it after third grade. If the student doesn't understand the problem/assignment and has no one to help at home, that homework isn't helping. It's hindering. Use that extra hour in the classroom to reinforce teaching for all students.

Re: Tracking
I agree with the person that said tracking should be reintroduced, but you have to be really careful. A lot of schools with tracking systems were hit with lawsuits because minority students were more likely to be placed in lower tracked classes (regardless of ability). So I think tracking should be tied to ability, but testing needs to be done, not just the assignment whim of some teacher or administrator--or even a parent.

Which brings me to NCLB:
Seriously, the stupidest idea brought to education in years. It is impossible to get 100% of students to pass any test. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But what makes more sense is to do away with traditional grade levels. Schools are being judged on whether kids can pass a set test. If they can, they can meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and eventually under NCLB 100% of kids in every sub group have to meet AYP on that year's test. As I said impossible.

Let's pretend Student A is 2 years behind 3rd grade level, for example, because his family was homeless. Now his family life is stable and he (in the course of the year) came up 1.5 grade levels and is now only half a year behind. That kid still fails the 3rd grade AYP test, but he's made tremendous strides. It's ridiculous to punish the kid, teacher, and school for his "failure".

On the flip side, on day 1, Student B in a different third grade already reads at a 7th grade level, does 5th grade math, and 4th grade science and social studies. By the end of the year, Student B hasn't moved any levels, but still exceeds AYP on the third grade test. The teacher, who taught the kid nothing all year, and the student, who has made very little progress, still get praised.

The kids aren't cookie cutter, but too many teachers teach like they are. Differentiated education needs to be the norm, not the exception so that all kids progress each year. We need to test how much each kid has learned individually (What did he know on day 1? What does he know on day 180?) or it's not meaningful.

Parent Involvement:
This is one of the most frustrating aspects of our education system. Parents are stretched thin, too. Many were failed by the education system themselves and don't know how to advocate for their child. No question that kids with involved parents do better. Some parents don't have that luxury, however, as they are working two or three jobs to meet basic needs: food and shelter.

So how do we combat that?
It's up to us to step up when we can and get involved. Mentor someone else's kid. Stop thinking only about what is right for "my" kid. Education is everyone's concern.

We can spend 13 years educating kids--at taxpayer expense--so that they become productive members of society, either via a trade or a profession. Or we can spend 60 years supporting people--at taxpayer expense--because they can't find work because they aren't literate, aren't engaged in society, aren't employable.

Frankly, I know which I'd rather do!

Off my soapbox now. . . . Thanks for reading my long list of points. . . .

[PirateLover]

Holly I read your entire post and I appreciate much of what you have to say. The one thing I'd like to point out though is that summer tourism in my area would most certainly be hit hard and would most likely not recouperate. Most people around here go to the Jersey Shore in the summer. Ever seen the movie "Jaws" where the mayor freaks out and doesn't want to close the beaches because people wouldn't come and all the tourism money would be lost? Beach towns around here depend on the summer. No one is going to go to the beach on an "off season" break.

You did point out some important facts about how many days in the school year are "wasted" days. That is so true.

[HollyB]

Holly I read your entire post and I appreciate much of what you have to say. The one thing I'd like to point out though is that summer tourism in my area would most certainly be hit hard and would most likely not recuperate.

Hi Maryanne:

I guess I was thinking that the various school districts would have staggered summer breaks anyway. I know our year round school vacations are slightly skewed from my sister's area's year round school vacations. So If everyone got 8 weeks (instead of the 11 we get now) for example. There'd still be plenty of time for people to take vacations. We're done at the end of May, and start well before Labor Day. I'm sure other districts would still choose to start after Labor Day, so their calendar might end in June.

[A Big Kid]

From CHINA!!!

Remember the old story that if you dig a hole deep enough, you will end up in China?

Now, we have dug the hole so deep, China has ended up here!

[A Big Kid]

I can't see how it would cost any more money... aren't teacher's salarys based on 12 months? They are here in Ontario, but they are paid out over 10 months. We have several year round schools in our region, and the idea of several shorter breaks through the year is far more appealing to us than the long summer break. Unfortunately, the programs our children need are only available during the mainstream program. My brother's children in England go to school in a "year roundish" schedule too. It means opportunity for travel in off times as well.

I agree with the whole idea. If the information is kept fresh in the child's mind, then less time will be needed to review, remind and reteach.

How about the costs for busses, gas, maintenance, janitors, heating and cooling, etc etc?

[tyandskyesmom]

If my dd could get art taught by an actual teacher instead of a parent volunteer, have PE more than one time a week, and have music, and a foreign language taught during the week, then I'd be all for a longer day. I wouldn't even mind having fewer weeks of summer vacation, if it would mean that my dd was getting a better education. Right now, she is only attending half day for Kindergarten and IMHO should be attending full day. I'm one of those involved, active parents, and she is bored silly, but because of the odd age requirements is almost 6 and in class with kids that are 4. I also feel that we need to raise the bar as far as what we should expect our kids to accomplish. I get letting kids be kids, but what about letting them be smart well rounded kids too!

I agree with you all too much!

I think the problem with where the US places among the world as far as education goes has a lot to do with what we push our kids to do. I have a lot of friends who think I am to intense with my kids. If thinking that doing your best all the time and working hard to get there is a bad thing then I'm guilty. Hard work can be fun and the sooner they learn that the better off they will be in the long run!

I think schools are too willing to teach down to the lesser able kidslevel than try to make those kids reach up to the higher. My son (now almost 11 and in 5th grade) was also almost 6 when he was allowed to start KG...even though he was ready at 4. He has never in our area been able to get into a class that was working at his level and in fact I have been told that I should not worry about it bacause "eventually all the other kids would catch up."...well, that is not acceptable to me and he no longer goes to that school! He now is reading at a 7th grade level and is a straight A student.

We see the same thing in sports. My daughter (now 5 1/2 and in KG) is in her 3rd year of gynmastics and ballet classes, her first year for tap and cheerleading (even though she cheered unofficially with the jr high girls last year) and she is very good at what she does. I encourage her to be good. She practices at home. She has fun doing it. She wants to do it. But becasue of her age, she cannot get into classes with older kids that are at ther level so she has to spend her limited class time with girls who are not ready to even be there withough mommies sometimes.

I think in the US we have become soooo "politically correct" that we are not allowed to acknowledge the good kids, the smart kids, the well behaved kids, the strong kids...becasue that might make someone else's kid feel bad. Well, I'm sorry but that is when a parent needs to step up and be a parent!

[tyandskyesmom]

Re: Public Funding for the Arts:
There are many studies that suggest a foundation in the arts (music, art, drama) enhance a students understanding in core areas. Music helps with math, knowledge of art helps with the study of history, and so on. I think suggestions that the public should not fund these subjects for a "few" students are short sighted. Are you making the same suggestion for sports, vocational training, foreign language, etc.? A well-rounded curriculum exists because students learn in different ways. Having different activities available gives you the best chance of hitting a students learning style. As has been pointed out, one-size-fits-all does not work in schools. We should be expanding the program offerings as much as we can afford, not contracting them.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of schools, at least in our area, use a "cookie cutter", "one size fits all" method of teaching. The picture I am being painted looks too much like the exceptional kids are getting left to wait for the less achieving.

Re: longer school days and longer calendar year
There are indeed studies that show students who attend school for longer than the 180 days currently used by the American school system do better than many of our students. But I'd be happy if we hit the 180 days. School districts allow teacher in service days/parent-teacher conference days, and half days to count. Studies show that most school districts get in somewhere between 150 and 170 actual instruction days. I know our school district sits at about 164. Take out testing days as well and I would bet, most kids are getting less than 160 days of instruction per year. Let's change that. 180 full days in the classroom plus a week for testing. Teachers should get their in service days, but not at the expense of a teaching day.

I agree with you here but just to add...the day needs to be much more educationally sound also...

As for a longer school year, I think spreading those 180 days out over the calendar year would work well for retaining learning. All schools have to do it for it to work, however. There was a push to move the high schools to year round here, but they can't do it because it messes with the athletic schedule. Someone made the point that it would cause havoc with tourist economies. It would shift the timing of tourism, but I don't think it would hurt it in the long run.

And for a longer school day, I'm for that as long as it has an accompanying drop in homework. There are good studies that show that homework does more to widen the learning gap than eliminate it after third grade. If the student doesn't understand the problem/assignment and has no one to help at home, that homework isn't helping. It's hindering. Use that extra hour in the classroom to reinforce teaching for all students.

I like homework. That is what keeps me informed of what my kids are doing and learning and how they are learning it. It allows me to be able to help where needed, pick up where the teacher has left off, help my children maintain the excellent status at the top of their class.

Re: Tracking
I agree with the person that said tracking should be reintroduced, but you have to be really careful. A lot of schools with tracking systems were hit with lawsuits because minority students were more likely to be placed in lower tracked classes (regardless of ability). So I think tracking should be tied to ability, but testing needs to be done, not just the assignment whim of some teacher or administrator--or even a parent.

And I suppose here comes my "politically in-correctness" because I don't care what color you are, where you live, or what your parents do for a living...why should kids that do have parents at home (and I work full time and volunteer and drive my kids to 5 or six different activities a week and still make dinner, shop for groceries, clean the house, etc...and still make time for homework help) have to be brought down by kids whose parents may not be able to do that...and yes, I will feel sorry for those kids but I don't see why that should take away from my kids's education that we are working hard to advance. I think we need, need, need to seperate kids by reading level and math level specifically. I think we need to point out exceptional kids and give the other kids something to strive for. I think we need to reward kids who do well, once again giving kids something to strive for.

For example...around here, if you join a baseball or football team you play. If you mom and dad paid their money you ge tto play. It does not matter that you missed 3 of the 4 practices this week or that you cannot seem to learn to catch a ball, or whatever. You play. We do not put any emphasis on winning or (God forbid!) losing...that would be bad! So what has this done? Has it made the poorer players better? Has it made the good kids better? Has it encouraged either? I propose that it has lowered the moralle of the good players. I propose it has given the poorer players absolutely no incentive at all to try harder...to learn more...to get better. We don't even have All-Star teams becasue that would be saying that these are the best players and that would be BAD. Someone's feelings may get hurt. A parent may have to actually parent!

The kids aren't cookie cutter, but too many teachers teach like they are. Differentiated education needs to be the norm, not the exception so that all kids progress each year. We need to test how much each kid has learned individually (What did he know on day 1? What does he know on day 180?) or it's not meaningful.

That would be a wonderful thing but then we get back to who is doing what and someone is going to have their feelings hurt because Johnnie was ranked higher that Sammy and rather that Sammy's parents encouraging and helping Sammie to catch up to Johnnie they will just go complain to the school or the government and we'll change everything to be easier for Sammy...that's the way it works these days!

Parent Involvement:
This is one of the most frustrating aspects of our education system. Parents are stretched thin, too. Many were failed by the education system themselves and don't know how to advocate for their child. No question that kids with involved parents do better. Some parents don't have that luxury, however, as they are working two or three jobs to meet basic needs: food and shelter.

I get this...however, when you made that choice to become a parent, didn't you also make that choice to help your child be the best he/she can be? Even if that means you suffer a little? I certainly did! And because I did, should my child have to suffer becasue someone else didn't? Becasue in the long run, that is what my child will do...the child who is not getting the help at home is getting taught to at the level he is at...my child, on the other hand, who is well above that level is having to sit back and do busy work until everyone is all caught up. In the long run this worse for my kid than making the other work up I think.


So how do we combat that?
It's up to us to step up when we can and get involved. Mentor someone else's kid. Stop thinking only about what is right for "my" kid. Education is everyone's concern.

We can spend 13 years educating kids--at taxpayer expense--so that they become productive members of society, either via a trade or a profession. Or we can spend 60 years supporting people--at taxpayer expense--because they can't find work because they aren't literate, aren't engaged in society, aren't employable.

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done these days. Everything is so sensitive to people that you are not allowed in as easily as you might have been 30 years ago. People get insulted easier. In a perfect world...

Frankly, I know which I'd rather do!

Off my soapbox now. . . . Thanks for reading my long list of points. . . .

For us, it seems we are always fighting for less equality. As bad as that sounds. It is probably an easier place to come from when your children are on the top of things but truthfully i come at it from both sides. Tyler is a brilliant young boy. School work is nothing for him...it never has been. I have begged at two different schools for extra work for him, for advanced placement, even for moving him up a grade all to no avail...and so he sits there without being pushed to his full potential. However, physically, he has to work at everything. He is a black belt in Tae-kwan-do (and it took him longer than a lot of other kids), he plays baseball and football (middle of the road), he just learned to ride his bike this past summer at 10 years old. Skye is just entering KG (first class of all day KG so that's a good start) so I am not sure what I will find educationally with her but physically, things come easy for her but this is where I feel she is not pushed hard enough by her coaches.


I know my view on things is not a popular or politically correct one but I see a lot of trying to help the under-priviledged. In our schools we spens a lot of money on English as a second language. We have a lot of help for pre-school aged kids with learning disabilities. But we have nothing to help the advanced kids stay that way or to encourage others to get to that point. NOTHING! Why is that ok?

I think we have made things too easy for kids...everything.

[Melanie]

And I suppose here comes my "politically in-correctness" because I don't care what color you are, where you live, or what your parents do for a living...why should kids that do have parents at home (and I work full time and volunteer and drive my kids to 5 or six different activities a week and still make dinner, shop for groceries, clean the house, etc...and still make time for homework help) have to be brought down by kids whose parents may not be able to do that...and yes, I will feel sorry for those kids but I don't see why that should take away from my kids's education that we are working hard to advance. I think we need, need, need to seperate kids by reading level and math level specifically. I think we need to point out exceptional kids and give the other kids something to strive for. I think we need to reward kids who do well, once again giving kids something to strive for.

For example...around here, if you join a baseball or football team you play. If you mom and dad paid their money you ge tto play. It does not matter that you missed 3 of the 4 practices this week or that you cannot seem to learn to catch a ball, or whatever. You play. We do not put any emphasis on winning or (God forbid!) losing...that would be bad! So what has this done? Has it made the poorer players better? Has it made the good kids better? Has it encouraged either? I propose that it has lowered the moralle of the good players. I propose it has given the poorer players absolutely no incentive at all to try harder...to learn more...to get better. We don't even have All-Star teams becasue that would be saying that these are the best players and that would be BAD. Someone's feelings may get hurt. A parent may have to actually parent!

Here, here!!!!

My oldest son has just entered middle school, and thank goodness where we are here in Florida they do seperate according to math/science and reading/language levels. Sadly enough, in Dept. of Defense schools where my kids have gone all their school lives up until this year, they did not.

The sports thing is a whole other issue/thread (and off-topic here) but I couldn't agree with you more. I understand how you are tying it into your school argument.

[tyandskyesmom]

Here, here!!!!

The sports thing is a whole other issue/thread (and off-topic here) but I couldn't agree with you more. I understand how you are tying it into your school argument.

Sorry...I just thought my point was easier explained using sports than education...but I think it works the same way...seperate kids into groups they can learn best in and rather than worry that kids in the "lower" (or whatever you want to call it) group may be upset that they are not in the "higher" group, use it to encourage the "lower" kids to get to the point of the "higher" kids...give them something to work for and to be proud of.

I think that is what is wrong with schools today...not the time in class but what is being done in class.

[HollyB]

Hi Sherry:

I don't disagree with you at all about the need to challenge kids at the top. I've sat on the "Gifted Advisory Board" in our local school district for the last 7 years and it can be like pulling teeth to get them to do anything. (No, we can't add honors Science to honors Math and Reading, that would be de facto tracking. Blah. Blah. Blah.) I get it because both my kids have taken every "honors" class the districts offers and they are still bored.

That said, a couple of their best teachers have not been in their honors classes, but have been trained in differentiated education techniques. So their "regular" social studies teacher last year did a good job of letting the kids test out of units and then work on other related projects (same or related subject matter, but more in depth) meanwhile the kids who didn't have a basic grasp (on the Constitution, for example) still got the regular lessons. I thought it worked really well, and it let all the kids in the class work at their own level.

That's the kind of training our teachers need across the board. Because believe me, even in gifted and talented classrooms, there is a huge range of abilities.