DC Public and charter - is there interest in year round school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to be clear year round school is a hit with folks because parents want to spend less on summer camp? That's the only pro agenda I've seen on this thread.
Now- tell me that schools are not babysitters & that you value teachers as professionals- not just a place to dump your kids.

No, because there is some evidence that year-round school would be better for kids. Primarily by minimizing the summer brain drain that results in teachers spending September reviewing stuff the kids learned the year before. Also, I think that giving kids regular, but shorter breaks throughout the year would be beneficial. And, yes, it would be easier on working families.

NP - "some" evidence is not enough, and does that evidence does not apply universally. The brain drain argument seems trotted out as a cover for people really interested in cost-savings (at the expense of tax payers) and convenience. And the brain drain argument overlooks the things learned during vacation time that aren't taught in school.

When 75% of students are low-income and at risk, the school district needs to adjust to meet and prioritize their needs . Otherwise you are just perpetuating the gaps between rich and poor students.

http://www.brighthubeducation.com/summer-learning-activities-ideas/78894-how-reading-prevents-summer-learning-loss/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to be clear year round school is a hit with folks because parents want to spend less on summer camp? That's the only pro agenda I've seen on this thread.
Now- tell me that schools are not babysitters & that you value teachers as professionals- not just a place to dump your kids.

No, because there is some evidence that year-round school would be better for kids. Primarily by minimizing the summer brain drain that results in teachers spending September reviewing stuff the kids learned the year before. Also, I think that giving kids regular, but shorter breaks throughout the year would be beneficial. And, yes, it would be easier on working families.

NP - "some" evidence is not enough, and does that evidence does not apply universally. The brain drain argument seems trotted out as a cover for people really interested in cost-savings (at the expense of tax payers) and convenience. And the brain drain argument overlooks the things learned during vacation time that aren't taught in school.

When 75% of students are low-income and at risk, the school district needs to adjust to meet and prioritize their needs . Otherwise you are just perpetuating the gaps between rich and poor students.

http://www.brighthubeducation.com/summer-learning-activities-ideas/78894-how-reading-prevents-summer-learning-loss/

As long as summer school is optional, that's fine. But sending a bunch of non-low-income families running to privates or the suburbs will have negative impact on the system.

[Anonymous]

"When 75% of students are low-income and at risk, the school district needs to adjust to meet and prioritize their needs . Otherwise you are just perpetuating the gaps between rich and poor students."

DC cannot adequately serve all of its students with a one-size-fits-all approach. Differentiation is a dream, not a plan - research and teachers tell us that. What we need is to give schools MORE autonomy to serve their particular student population as the school leaders see fit.

[Anonymous]

Very easy to adjust and prioritize needs of at-risk children by ensuring those children have access to summer programs. Of course, it's easy for me to say what's best for other people's children...I in fact have my doubts whether 11 months of DCPS test prep and disrupted classrooms/bullying will actually boost the employability of at risk children. Maybe the alternatives on offer are not as good. How many at risk children actually participate in DCPS summer school? Are parents/guardians clamoring for more?

For other children with access to stronger at-home and community resources over the summer, seems crazy to spend scarce resources on an obligatory extra month of school. An extra month of test prep isn't going to help, and will prevent access to out of school learning opportunities, and academic support that is more thoughtfully crafted to address weaknesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very easy to adjust and prioritize needs of at-risk children by ensuring those children have access to summer programs. Of course, it's easy for me to say what's best for other people's children...I in fact have my doubts whether 11 months of DCPS test prep and disrupted classrooms/bullying will actually boost the employability of at risk children. Maybe the alternatives on offer are not as good. How many at risk children actually participate in DCPS summer school? Are parents/guardians clamoring for more?

For other children with access to stronger at-home and community resources over the summer, seems crazy to spend scarce resources on an obligatory extra month of school. An extra month of test prep isn't going to help, and will prevent access to out of school learning opportunities, and academic support that is more thoughtfully crafted to address weaknesses.

My children have excellent access to enriching opportunities outside of school. That's exactly why I'd prefer a less bunched and intensive schedule. More time for family and museums and camps and independent interests and sports and leisure. It's a life balance thing. An extra week off here, a long weekend there... it's just a more civilized pace of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very easy to adjust and prioritize needs of at-risk children by ensuring those children have access to summer programs. Of course, it's easy for me to say what's best for other people's children...I in fact have my doubts whether 11 months of DCPS test prep and disrupted classrooms/bullying will actually boost the employability of at risk children. Maybe the alternatives on offer are not as good. How many at risk children actually participate in DCPS summer school? Are parents/guardians clamoring for more?

For other children with access to stronger at-home and community resources over the summer, seems crazy to spend scarce resources on an obligatory extra month of school. An extra month of test prep isn't going to help, and will prevent access to out of school learning opportunities, and academic support that is more thoughtfully crafted to address weaknesses.

My children have excellent access to enriching opportunities outside of school. That's exactly why I'd prefer a less bunched and intensive schedule. More time for family and museums and camps and independent interests and sports and leisure. It's a life balance thing. An extra week off here, a long weekend there... it's just a more civilized pace of life.

If your children have excellent access to out of school opportunities, why should dcps invest $$$$ in funding extended year for your children? To ensure a more civilized pace of life? Do you realize that we have three long weekends in a row coming up? Then thanksgiving? Then another long weekend, then Winter break? Would you characterize that as a breakneck pace?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very easy to adjust and prioritize needs of at-risk children by ensuring those children have access to summer programs. Of course, it's easy for me to say what's best for other people's children...I in fact have my doubts whether 11 months of DCPS test prep and disrupted classrooms/bullying will actually boost the employability of at risk children. Maybe the alternatives on offer are not as good. How many at risk children actually participate in DCPS summer school? Are parents/guardians clamoring for more?

For other children with access to stronger at-home and community resources over the summer, seems crazy to spend scarce resources on an obligatory extra month of school. An extra month of test prep isn't going to help, and will prevent access to out of school learning opportunities, and academic support that is more thoughtfully crafted to address weaknesses.

My children have excellent access to enriching opportunities outside of school. That's exactly why I'd prefer a less bunched and intensive schedule. More time for family and museums and camps and independent interests and sports and leisure. It's a life balance thing. An extra week off here, a long weekend there... it's just a more civilized pace of life.

By December break, we will have had 8 long weekends on the traditional schedule. How much more do you need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to be clear year round school is a hit with folks because parents want to spend less on summer camp? That's the only pro agenda I've seen on this thread.
Now- tell me that schools are not babysitters & that you value teachers as professionals- not just a place to dump your kids.

No, because there is some evidence that year-round school would be better for kids. Primarily by minimizing the summer brain drain that results in teachers spending September reviewing stuff the kids learned the year before. Also, I think that giving kids regular, but shorter breaks throughout the year would be beneficial. And, yes, it would be easier on working families.

NP - "some" evidence is not enough, and does that evidence does not apply universally. The brain drain argument seems trotted out as a cover for people really interested in cost-savings (at the expense of tax payers) and convenience. And the brain drain argument overlooks the things learned during vacation time that aren't taught in school.

When 75% of students are low-income and at risk, the school district needs to adjust to meet and prioritize their needs . Otherwise you are just perpetuating the gaps between rich and poor students.

http://www.brighthubeducation.com/summer-learning-activities-ideas/78894-how-reading-prevents-summer-learning-loss/

New poster here and I think I agree with NP above.

Education research shows that poor and disadvantaged students do better in year-round school, measured by test scores. This is due to "summer brain drain" and also because these students need more time to learn the material the first time around. The same research shows that there is no benefit of year round school for children of well educated, affluent parents, again measured by test scores. For these students the traditional school year is sufficient time to learn the material. If you extend the year without increasing the material then you are probably wasting these students' time. And if you increase the material via accelerated or enriched learning then the advanced students would learn more but the struggling students would be even further behind.

So why isn't there broad support for summer school to add more time to the year for kids who need it but not for kids who don't, to level the playing field and maximize efficient use of tax dollars?

My hypothesis is that the well-educated parents fall into two groups. One group prefers less school because that means more time for travel and private instruction, plus unstructured play for younger kids and internships or other college and career prep for older kids (A). Another group prefers more school because they are not in a position to arrange these things and they experience stress and maybe a little FOMO (B).

Given widely-cited DCUM demographics, my hypothesis is that these threads are largely a discussion between these two groups, A and B. The main proponents of extended year on these threads are not poor families or their advocates. They are well-educated families whose lives do not allow extensive summer enrichment or unstructured time for their little ones and who find it stressful to organize and pay for camps in the summer. These parents would find it unappealing and perhaps even socially stigmatizing to send their kids to a summer camp that is designed for struggling students. So they prefer to advocate for year-round school so that everyone is in the same boat.

This for me answers the question of why summer school does not get much support on these threads. An expanded summer program (these programs exist in DC but don't cover enough students) would solve the problems that affect disadvantaged kids, but it would not be appealing to group B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, to be clear year round school is a hit with folks because parents want to spend less on summer camp? That's the only pro agenda I've seen on this thread.
Now- tell me that schools are not babysitters & that you value teachers as professionals- not just a place to dump your kids.

No, because there is some evidence that year-round school would be better for kids. Primarily by minimizing the summer brain drain that results in teachers spending September reviewing stuff the kids learned the year before. Also, I think that giving kids regular, but shorter breaks throughout the year would be beneficial. And, yes, it would be easier on working families.

NP - "some" evidence is not enough, and does that evidence does not apply universally. The brain drain argument seems trotted out as a cover for people really interested in cost-savings (at the expense of tax payers) and convenience. And the brain drain argument overlooks the things learned during vacation time that aren't taught in school.

When 75% of students are low-income and at risk, the school district needs to adjust to meet and prioritize their needs . Otherwise you are just perpetuating the gaps between rich and poor students.

http://www.brighthubeducation.com/summer-learning-activities-ideas/78894-how-reading-prevents-summer-learning-loss/

New poster here and I think I agree with NP above.

Education research shows that poor and disadvantaged students do better in year-round school, measured by test scores. This is due to "summer brain drain" and also because these students need more time to learn the material the first time around. The same research shows that there is no benefit of year round school for children of well educated, affluent parents, again measured by test scores. For these students the traditional school year is sufficient time to learn the material. If you extend the year without increasing the material then you are probably wasting these students' time. And if you increase the material via accelerated or enriched learning then the advanced students would learn more but the struggling students would be even further behind.

So why isn't there broad support for summer school to add more time to the year for kids who need it but not for kids who don't, to level the playing field and maximize efficient use of tax dollars?

My hypothesis is that the well-educated parents fall into two groups. One group prefers less school because that means more time for travel and private instruction, plus unstructured play for younger kids and internships or other college and career prep for older kids (A). Another group prefers more school because they are not in a position to arrange these things and they experience stress and maybe a little FOMO (B).

Given widely-cited DCUM demographics, my hypothesis is that these threads are largely a discussion between these two groups, A and B. The main proponents of extended year on these threads are not poor families or their advocates. They are well-educated families whose lives do not allow extensive summer enrichment or unstructured time for their little ones and who find it stressful to organize and pay for camps in the summer. These parents would find it unappealing and perhaps even socially stigmatizing to send their kids to a summer camp that is designed for struggling students. So they prefer to advocate for year-round school so that everyone is in the same boat.

This for me answers the question of why summer school does not get much support on these threads. An expanded summer program (these programs exist in DC but don't cover enough students) would solve the problems that affect disadvantaged kids, but it would not be appealing to group B.

I meant to add, summer school would get support from group A, most of whom are liberals around here and have no problem with tax dollars being spent on the poor. They just don't want the imposition of mandatory and unnecessary (for them) year-round school.

[Anonymous]

To 10:00 (10:23) -

That's really exactly what's happened so far.

The schools where extended school year is happening are all Title 1 schools. There hasn't been widespread push back from parents in fact many of the parents welcome it. No one except people on this thread have said it's an "extra month of test prep" and in fact there's funds for more enrichment activities.

And DCPS has offered families who don't want a year-round calendar the option to enroll at another DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 10:00 (10:23) -

That's really exactly what's happened so far.

The schools where extended school year is happening are all Title 1 schools. There hasn't been widespread push back from parents in fact many of the parents welcome it. No one except people on this thread have said it's an "extra month of test prep" and in fact there's funds for more enrichment activities.

And DCPS has offered families who don't want a year-round calendar the option to enroll at another DCPS.


Yes! It's not test prep - it's enrichment! Arts, museum trips, music...isn't that what we all want for our summers? Why not have our schools organize it and allow our children to remain in school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very easy to adjust and prioritize needs of at-risk children by ensuring those children have access to summer programs. Of course, it's easy for me to say what's best for other people's children...I in fact have my doubts whether 11 months of DCPS test prep and disrupted classrooms/bullying will actually boost the employability of at risk children. Maybe the alternatives on offer are not as good. How many at risk children actually participate in DCPS summer school? Are parents/guardians clamoring for more?

For other children with access to stronger at-home and community resources over the summer, seems crazy to spend scarce resources on an obligatory extra month of school. An extra month of test prep isn't going to help, and will prevent access to out of school learning opportunities, and academic support that is more thoughtfully crafted to address weaknesses.

I had about 40 of my high school students fail last year and end up in summer school. About 15 of them actually showed up. 8 of them passed and promoted to the next grade.

[Anonymous]

Summer is awesome. Don't take that away from children.

[Anonymous]

"When 75% of students are low-income and at risk, the school district needs to adjust to meet and prioritize their needs . Otherwise you are just perpetuating the gaps between rich and poor students."

So we ignore the needs of the smartest and highest-achieving kids who have the abilities to do great things for our city/country?

No, research shows that these kids do NOT do okay when their needs are ignored. In fact, a lot of them end up underachieving and, yes, in jail. (10% of the jail population is gifted, compared to 2-3% of the total population.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"When 75% of students are low-income and at risk, the school district needs to adjust to meet and prioritize their needs . Otherwise you are just perpetuating the gaps between rich and poor students."

So we ignore the needs of the smartest and highest-achieving kids who have the abilities to do great things for our city/country?

No, research shows that these kids do NOT do okay when their needs are ignored. In fact, a lot of them end up underachieving and, yes, in jail. (10% of the jail population is gifted, compared to 2-3% of the total population.)

Please. Show me how anyone is "ignoring the needs of the smartest and highest-achieving kids." Your post assumes that the 75% of students who are low-income and at-risk are not smart or high achieving and lack the abilities to do great things for our city/country. Why do you assume that there are not kids in that 75% who will benefit from and be able to realize their high achieving status via an extended school year?

I think you sound pretty out of touch with the educational and social needs of a lot of children in this city. I don't doubt that extended year will be resisted in upper NW and the parts of the Hill that are populated by high income families, though I do think that the Hill families may be better acquainted with the needs of at-risk students since there are at-risk students in Hill schools. I don't think you need to worry about your kid missing out on underwater basket-weaving or whatever summer enrichment options the high SES kids are taking advantage of.

I think that a lot of people on this thread are operating in a very different reality than the parents of many kids whose schools are participating in this program. For starters, it sounds like many of you have the option to take weeks-long vacations at least once per summer. If you're talking about any kind of "enriching travel" you have the means to take enriching vacations, including paying for transportation to whatever enriching place and taking the time off work to travel. You are probably taking a paid vacation, which assumes that you work in a position where that's a benefit you have. If you're not taking vacations, and are prioritizing spending quality time with your kids over the summer, it sounds like you are either a stay at home parent or a person who is able to work from home. If you're the SAHP, you probably have a high-earning spouse and your family is solvent on one income.

That isn't true for the vast majority of parents at the schools where the program exists right now, so please spare us the concern about those poor neglected wealthy children and their potential to affect the future being compromised because of an extra 20 school days.