Hackett Elementary tried this for quite a few years in Beloit. There was definitely improvement in retention of the materials taught. The only reason that they returned to the regular calendar is that it was very difficult to have the other schools on one calender and they on another. If they could have convinced the parents in the entire district as to the benifits of this, the results would have been awesome!

They still had 180 contact days with students, just spread out differently through the year. I believe that there was a 5 week break for "summer", they had a 2 week break in fall, a 2 or 3 week break in winter, and a 2 or 3 week break in the spring.

The large time off that students have now is not conducive to retaining the skills taught throughout the year, ESPECIALLY in the elementary levels. Children can lose a quarter or better of reading skills over the summer when they are not using that skill on a regular basis. Then the next year's teacher can spend at least the first month of school reteaching what the previous teacher already taught.

Would there be some extra expenses involved? Yes, most like with cooling issues in the summer. But wouldn't you reduce some heating expenses in the winter with them out of the building more for the winter break? I guess it amounts to what is most important to our community...our children becoming well educated to function in an ever-changing society OR to keep the status quo that is complained about on a daily basis in these forums.

If structured properly would be very beneficial. Studies have shown that summer breaks are detrimental when it comes to retention of what was learned in the prior school year.

I have a friend out west who's daughter is a teacher in a school district where they have year round school. It would make sense. Having the month of July off so kids could still participate in 4-H and FFA activities such as the fair, state fair, and various other activities it would also eliminate the yearly dash and expense of buying school supplies all at once.

Vacation time could be reduced as staff would still get time off. Just not all at once. This would also reduce the problems with days off due to weather related issues, teacher work days, conferences, etc. by incorporating quarter breaks with scheduled days off would make for better use of resources and reduce wasteful spending.

As an educator, year round school makes a lot of sense, but their is definitely an expense increase. In all liklihood, though, there wouldn't be much more contact days as there would be more/longer breaks. Summer break does play an important part of the education system such as recharging kids and teachers and allowing time for schools to be cleaned.

Keep in mind that a full school year would (I would think) cost more. Building maintenance (cooling, electric), paying aids, substitutes to cover teacher vacations and educational time off (to maintain educational requirements a substitute would have to cover the class). Im not opposed to the full year, just wondering how much more it would cost.

The same teachers who complain to me about summer's three month "brain drain" also fight hardest to *keep* that three month break.
Explain that to me.