Year round school cons and pros: The pros and cons of year-round school
The pros and cons of year-round school
Think year-round school might be right for your child, but not sure if they’ll miss summer vacation? Before you make the decision between year-round school vs. traditional school, here’s a look at what this school system looks like and the pros and cons of year-round school.
What is year-round school?
Kids who attend a year-round school go to class the same number of days as students on a traditional school schedule. The only difference? A year-round school calendar is spread out more evenly over the year. Students get more frequent breaks, but their breaks are shorter and they don’t get a traditional 10- to 12-week summer break.
Here are some of the pros and cons of year-round school.
| Pros | Cons |
| Longer-lasting learning with shorter, more intense bursts of instruction. | More difficulty scheduling meaningful family time. |
| Shorter breaks in learning, which can cause a decline in academic skills and knowledge. |
Possible child care challenges, if the care options in your area follow a traditional school track. |
| Less boredom during long summer breaks. | Fewer unique learning opportunities that come with traditional summer vacations. |
The pros of year-round school
Eliminating any sort of long break from school can improve a child’s academic achievement. Long summers are known to cause “summer slide,” or the decline of academic skills and knowledge over the course of the extended vacation. Even if you hire a tutor to help your child in subjects like math, it may not be enough to prevent at least a little of this “summer slide” from occurring. This loss in learning varies across grade level, subject matter and family income, according to the National Summer Learning Association, but it affects all children in some way.
“If your child doesn’t have a long break, it helps prevent summer learning loss,” says Carol Lloyd, the executive editor at Great Schools.
“Summer learning loss is a major issue for kids. All children — no matter their economic level — experience a slide in math over the summer months.” The slide varies for other subjects.
Though it may seem fun, a summer break can often lead to boredom. Year-round school eliminates the need to fill 12 weeks of vacation with activities to keep your child interested and engaged.
“If the American summer is not structured, it’s almost too long,” Lloyd says. “A lot of kids don’t have enough to do during the summer — they get bored.”
The shorter, more intense bursts of instruction along with more breaks is another pro of year-round school, says Matthew Lynch, a writer, education activist and the former dean of the school of education, psychology, and interdisciplinary studies at Virginia Union University.
The cons of year-round school
The most obvious downside of year-round school is the effect it can have on families. Quality family time is important to the emotional and developmental well being of a child.
Not having a summer break can make it difficult to schedule meaningful family time.
“The major drawback is the assumed detriment to family structure,” Lynch says. “American families have become accustomed to the traditional long summer vacation. Parents may find it difficult to schedule vacations and family reunions.”
Finding child care that works well with year-round school is often another challenge for parents — no matter whether you’re considering hiring babysitters or nannies.
“Child care could also become a concern, particularly if multiple, shorter school vacations are scheduled throughout the year, at times when parents are working,” Lynch says.
In addition, the absence of a true summer can be a negative for all concerned. Summers off have long been a light at the end of the tunnel for teachers after an intense school year.
“Every job comes with its share of headaches and, at one point or another, employees in all industries claim that they are burned out,” Lynch says.
He adds that this is of particular concern in education because tired teachers can have a direct effect on their students.
Finally, traditional summer vacations can provide unique learning opportunities you can’t get in a classroom. Taking that time away from kids means they could miss out on art, culture and special adventures.
“During summer break, kids are getting all sorts of experiences they wouldn’t get in school,” Lloyd says. “Summer is a great supplement to what your child is getting in school. If they’re in year-round school your child will miss out on those experiences.”
Is year-round school right for your family?
Deciding whether or not you send your child to year-round school is a very personal decision. Here are a steps to take before making your final decision:
- Weigh the pros and cons of year-round school.
- Visit the school in question.
- If your child is old enough, see what he thinks about this new school plan.
- Consider any difficulties you may have securing child care.
- Ultimately go with what’s best for your family.
Pros and Cons of Year-Round School
-
Published On:
November 23, 2020
Summer break from school is as American as apple pie. But educators, parents and social scientists continue to debate: Is it really necessary? Or is it, in fact, detrimental to students’ learning?
The idea of year-round school began to gain momentum in the 1970s, and now the debate has reached the mainstream. There are many components to the arguments for and against year-round school: family scheduling, opportunities for play and recreation, and use of physical school buildings, to name a few. But one question is central to the discussion: Does year-round school provide a better education?
What Is “Year-Round” School?
Year-round school does not mean students are in school 365 days a year. The average American student currently spends 180 days in school, according to Education Commission of the States.
Switching to a year-round schedule would not significantly increase the number of days in attendance, but rather spread instructional days out across the entire year. That might mean students attend school for 45 days, followed by a 15-day break (the 45-15 plan). Other schedule patterns discussed are 90-30 or 60-20.
Pros of Year-Round School
Advocates for year-round schooling posit that the summer break, part of American school tradition since the beginning of formal education, is outdated now that children are not expected to work on the family farm during warmer months.
In addition, they argue that attending school year round would help children retain what they learn, rather than forget it over the summer. Critics of summer break say teachers waste valuable time reteaching last year’s skills at the beginning of the year.
Educational research supports the claim that disadvantaged students especially tend to experience “summer learning loss,” or a cumulative loss of skills.
This is especially true in the areas of reading and language. According to the nonprofit National Summer Learning Association, low-income youth lose two to three months in reading skills over the summer, as they typically do not have access to the same quality summer camps and educational programs available to higher-income students who may even make small academic gains during the break.
Low-income students face additional summertime challenges, including accessing nutritious food. Feeding America notes that 22 million children receive free or reduced-cost lunches during the school year, but just 3.76 million, or 17% percent, access summer meals through the USDA Summer Food Service Program. That leaves many students vulnerable to food insecurity and nutritional setbacks during the summer.
Cons of Year-Round School
Critics of year-round schooling cite the logistical problems it poses. Families with one child in year-round school and another in traditional school would find it difficult to plan vacations and events.
School athletics would be more difficult to schedule if all schools are not on the same timetable. In addition, older students often look forward to having summer jobs.
Long summer breaks offer children unstructured time for independent play and exploration through participation in non-school activities.
Many school districts argue that maintaining buildings year round would be more expensive. In some areas, air conditioning facilities during hot summer months would be costly. Summer breaks also provide adequate time to conduct lengthy maintenance projects on school buildings.
But perhaps the strongest argument against year-round schooling, critics say, is that there is simply not enough evidence that learning outcomes improve when students attend school without an extended summer break. Because the majority of American schools do not operate on that schedule, critics maintain there is not enough research to prove that year-round school is beneficial either socially or academically.
Learn more about Lamar University’s online M.Ed. in Administration program.
Sources:
ThoughtCo: Pros and Cons of Year-Round SchoolEducation Commission of the States: Number of Instructional Days/Hours in the School Year
Scholastic: The Pros and Cons of Year-Round Schools
National Summer Learning Association: The Achievement Gap
Feeding America: Summer Food Service Programs
Education Week: Year-Round Schooling: 3 Common Arguments Against It
three
Have a question or concern about this article? Please contact us.
Articles that appear on this website are for information purposes only. The nature of the information in all of the articles is intended to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered.
The information contained within this site has been sourced and presented with reasonable care. If there are errors, please contact us by completing the form below.
Timeliness: Note that most articles published on this website remain on the website indefinitely. Only those articles that have been published within the most recent months may be considered timely. We do not remove articles regardless of the date of publication, as many, but not all, of our earlier articles may still have important relevance to some of our visitors. Use appropriate caution in acting on the information of any article.
Report inaccurate article content:
- Name*
- Email Address*
- Feedback*
🎖▷ Why you don’t need to worry about weight gain with Lamictal
psychology
5,336 2 minutes read
If you’re worried that taking Lamictal (lamotrigine) may cause weight gain, there’s good news. It probably won’t affect your weight much. If anything, you’re more likely to lose weight due to Lamictal than gain weight, but either way, the changes are likely to be pretty small.
The effect of Lamictal on weight has been little studied and various clinical trials have found minimal effect. In fact, some researchers even considered the drug as a possible remedy for obesity and as a remedy for overeating. This information should be reassuring for people with bipolar disorder, as many of the medications used to treat this condition can cause weight gain.
Lamictal findings and weight gain or loss
Lamictal is an anticonvulsant that can be used to treat seizures such as epilepsy. It is also used as a mood stabilizer for bipolar disorder.
In the first clinical trials with the drug, 5 percent of adults with epilepsy lost weight while taking Lamictal, while 1 to 5 percent of patients with bipolar I disorder gained weight while taking the drug. The researchers do not disclose how much weight patients have gained or lost.
Meanwhile, a 2006 study comparing the effects on weight of Lamictal, lithium, and placebo found that some Lamictal-treated patients gained weight, some lost weight, and most remained about the same weight.
Weight changes are usually not many pounds anyway. Obese patients taking Lamictal lost an average of four pounds, while the weight of non-obese patients remained virtually unchanged.
Relationship between weight gain and other bipolar drugs
Weight gain from medications used to treat bipolar disorder is unfortunately quite common. Some mood stabilizers commonly used for bipolar disorder, especially lithium and Depakote (valproate), carry a high risk of weight gain.
In addition, the atypical antipsychotics Clozaril (clozapine) and Zyprexa (olanzapine) tend to cause significant weight gain in people who take them. Finally, some antidepressants, notably Paxil (paroxetine) and Remeron (mirtazapine), have been associated with weight gain.
Therefore, if you are already overweight, you and your psychiatrist may want to consider additional weight gain when determining your bipolar medication regimen. Based on this, Lamictal may be a good choice.
Lamictal as a possible treatment for obesity
Lamictal has also been studied as a possible treatment for obesity in people without epilepsy or bipolar disorder.
In a small 40-person clinical trial conducted in 2006, researchers randomly assigned participants to receive either lamictal or placebo for up to 26 weeks. Each participant in the study had a body mass index (BMI) between 30 and 40, placing them in the obese group to the level of severe obesity. Those who took Lamictal lost an average of just over 10 pounds. Those who took the placebo lost about 7 pounds in the meantime, so while those who took Lamictal lost more weight, they didn’t lose all that much more.
Another study in 2009 looked at Lamictal as a remedy for overeating. This study involved 51 people with the condition that 26 of them received Lamictal, and 25 – placebo.
Those who took Lamictal lost more weight than those who took placebo (about 2.5 pounds vs. about one third of a pound) and did have significant improvements in blood sugar and cholesterol lab test results. However, Lamictal did not appear to affect other aspects of the eating disorder when compared to placebo.
TAGS
LAMICTALBESTALLYABUSHAVAMOVANY -SHOULD -SUBSTUMILICARY
Back to Top Button
90,000 drawbacks of a traditional school: minuses of education in modern school
<< Lid>
¾
The traditional school 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 mass to take into account the individuality of each child. The same requirements apply to everyone: to those who are strong in science, and to those who show remarkable abilities in sports, and to those who draw incredibly beautifully.
On the one hand, this is not bad. But on the other hand, we get a rather average version of the curriculum, designed for average C students.
Clever and capable children get bored many times over and reinforce the same thing, gradually they lose interest in learning. This is the main shortcoming of the modern school.
If a child has an aptitude for a certain subject, there are not many opportunities at school to develop them.
Instead of an in-depth program in a specific subject, you will have to deal with it on an equal basis with other disciplines, even if the student knows exactly what he is interested in and what he wants to connect his life with.
The traditional school lays claim to a child’s entire life
The next significant disadvantage of the school is that it takes too much time. The child cannot say: “OK, today I will spend three hours studying, and tomorrow I will devote five hours to her.” No, the lessons take 4-7 hours depending on the class and another 2-3 hours for homework. Add to that the travel time from home to school and back. Simple arithmetic shows that almost the entire children’s day is spent exclusively on school.
It is not surprising that with such a schedule in sections overflowing with first-graders, in a year or two there are no grown children left. There is just not enough time for extra activities and sports.
The time when a child can just lie down or sit down doing absolutely nothing (remember, most of us today’s parents did this every day when we were in school ourselves?) can simply be forgotten.
The school brings up obedience and does not value initiative
Four spaces down, three spaces to the left. My son used to repeat this principle like a mantra in the first grade. It was hard to count the unruly cells, he did not always cope. As a result, I got triples: with the right decision, but the wrong design, the teacher categorically refused to give a higher mark.
Another example seems even more ridiculous, but any parent will remember a similar situation. In the second grade, when my son was already studying at a family education, he had a difficult certification in the world around him.
— Which animal is born with its eyes closed? the teacher asks.
– Fox, – says the son.
– No!
– Both the fox and the wolf are blind at first! the son argues.
– No, think again.
– No, look, Google is in solidarity, – I intervene.
– I want him to talk about kittens. The textbook is about them.
Both funny and sad. Solving problems in a different, unusual way is often considered a mistake. And teachers almost do not admit mistakes if children point them out, because in their stereotypical logic, the one who is younger cannot a priori be smarter.
The school does not care about children’s health
In fact, health-saving technologies are not used in modern schools. Five or six lessons of 45 minutes a day definitely do not contribute to good blood circulation or proper posture.
Mental health is also not taken seriously in the traditional school. Special services are being created, but in fact little has changed. The psychological climate leaves much to be desired: children swear among themselves, every now and then choosing a new object for bullying, teachers do not always choose expressions.
In preparing this text, I asked a question about the reasons for switching to family education in one chat of homeschool parents.
Answers about the shortcomings of the traditional school varied. But one invariably repeated and sounded something like this: “The teachers are screaming. It is a fact. There is no point in reminding them about respect: you will turn against yourself and against the child. Such unanimity of opinion is somewhat frightening.
The school does not promote socialization
Despite all the fears about the lack of socialization in family education, I am sure that problems with socialization, which, by the way, does not mean communication, but the process of transferring values, threaten children in a traditional school. There we have a team of 30 people who did not choose each other’s company, and in this team the child must exist for 11 years.
As far as the process of transferring values is concerned, there is reason to doubt that strangers, such as teachers, will do it better than parents. Finding such a teaching staff, each member of which shares your worldview, seems like an impossible task.
Traditional school does not give freedom
Among my acquaintances there are a lot of those who took their children from school for family education because of the lack of freedom. Some families wanted to travel as much as possible. In others, dancers and athletes grow up, who now and then had to be sent to training camps and competitions. The school is not ready for this even if there are individual curricula.
There are many more opportunities for freedom in family education. Yes, you have to adjust to the certification schedule, but still you need to take tests no more than once a quarter, and in most schools you can agree on semi-annual or annual certifications.
The traditional school is not modern
The big minus of studying at school is that mass education slowly adjusts to modern demands. Yes, in big cities there are already modern lyceums and schools that teach international baccalaureate programs, but all this is rather an exception to the rule.