Table Of ContentDOCUMENT RESUME
EA 024 901
ED 357 476
AUTHOR
Glass, Gene V.
Policy Considerations in Conversion to Year-Round
TITLE
Schools. Policy Briefs of the Education Policy
Studies Laboratory, No. 92-01.
Arizona State Univ., Tempe. Coll. of Education.
INSTITUTION
PUB DATE
Jan 92
NOTE
6p.
PUB TYPE
Information Analyses (070)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Cost Effectiveness; Elementary Secondary Education;
*Enrollment; *Financial Problems: Public Schools;
*School Schedules; Vacations; *Year Round Schools
*Concept 6 Calendar; *Quinmester Program
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
Increasing enrollments and budget problems have
prompted many school districts nationwide to experiment with
year-round school schedules. Year-round school schedules allow
districts to serve more students without constructing more buildings.
As in traditional 9-month schools, students in year-round schools
attend classes about 180 days a year. The students are divided into
groups and school-year starting dates are staggered so there is
always a portion of students on vacation. In the 45-15 plan, four
groups of students attend school for 45 days, and then have 15 days
off. The Concept 6 plan divides the calendar year into six 2-month
blocks. Three tracks of students have classes for 4 consecutive
months and then a vacation for 2 months. Another year-round schedule
divides the school year into five 45-day terms, or quinmesters. It is
clear a year-round-school schedule can save an expanding district
money over constructing a new school, but transition costs can be
high. Academic achievement apparently is not harmed in year-round
schools and curriculum can be more varied. To be successful,
year-round schools must have the support of the community, since they
can disrupt family life and vacation schedules. OPT)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
U.S. OFFANTIUNT OF EDUCATION
Once d Edembenel Reemme end ispeurnoca
Policy Briefs
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (EMI
I Wit
.s
document en been reoroduCed 418
moaned from II, Dena. p oneeneaben
Otenennit
O MAP
change. hem Der made to epics'
INTAIO-CocA (FAWN
opmonsNeFbarnanw
Pow.
01 As. or
onionl So not esceseeley telMeant olkrst
OEID Melton Or DObOY
of the
Education Policy Studies Laboratory
Arizona State University
College of Education
January 1992
No. 92-01
Policy Considerations In
PERMISSION 10 REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Conversion to Year-Round Schools Rnetianda
Gene V Glass
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Arizona State University
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
Increasing enrollments at a true of
consecutive months and then a vacation for
two months. Concept 6 can accommodate a
tight budgets plague school districts around
the country. In about thirty states, districts
one-third enrollment increase. Because the
have experimented withyear-round schools
students attend two four -month terms a year,
the administrative burdens of scheduling
in an attempt to serve more students without
and recording grades are not as
classes
constructing more buildings. The Los Ange-
les (CA) Unified School District is one of
heavy as in the 45-15 plan. One third of the
several districts that have converted many
students will have no summer vacation at all;
in areas with great seasonal temperature
schools to a year-round schedule.
variations, this track will be unpopular.
In year-round schools, as in tradi-
Concept 6, then, can meetwith a great deal of
tional nine-month schools, students attend
community resistance when the students'
classes about 180 days spread throughout the
tracks are mandated and not freely chosen_
twelve calendar months. Typically, the stu-
dent body is divided into three, four or five
Another year-round schedule is the
groups; school year starting dates are stag-
Five 45-day terms, or quins,
quinmester.
gered so that at any one time, between one-
make up the year; students attend four of the
third and one- fifth of the students are on
five quins. In some districts, the fifth quin
vacation. In the most popular year- round
is optional; students who desire acceleration
or enrichment or who need remediation,
schedule, the 45-15 plan, four groups of stu-
attend all five terms.
dents attend school for forty-five days, or
Obviously, if many
about nine weeks, and then have fifteen
students take advantage of this option, the
district does not save money, because the
days off. Building capacity can be increased
enrollment remains the same as in tradi-
25% because one-quarter of the student body
is :Mays on vacation.
The J5-15 plan is
tional schools. There are many other year-
popular because all students It
round schedules, such as the trimester or
re a summer
quarter systems.
vacation, even if it is a shorter one. It is not,
The rationale for most,
however, favored by high schools because
however, is the same: to avoid construction
the short, three-week vacations limit sum-
of new schools by increasing enrollment at
mer job opportunities.
In the Concept 6
existing schools. The advantages of year-
year-round plan- the calendar year is di-
round schools can theoretically extend be-
g
vided into six two-month blocks. The stu-
yond a district's pocketbook. Some of the
dents, in three tracks, have classes for four
advantages most often claimed for year-
2
-
2
Year-round Schools
.EPSL Policy Briefs
round schools are listed below:
meat& four traditional schools. Year-round
programs, therefore, appeal to administra-
-Districts may be able to save money
by avoiding school construc-
tors in growing districts where school bond
elections are lost. The Pajaro Valley School
tion.
District, in a largely agricultural area in
-Students may retain more over
shorter vacations; thus,
.ey
northern California, found itself in 1971with
15% more students than its schools could
may need less review at the
serve on a nine-month calendar (Burnett,
beginning of the year.
1978). Although its per pupil costs were
-Because breaks will be more fre-
below state and national averages, the elec-
quent, teachers might not ex
torate failed to pass ten consecutive bond
perience burnout.
issues and tax overrides. At the same time,
Some families might welcome op
the osmmtraity was dissatisfied with double
portunities for vacations in all
sessions. Five schools were thus convened to
seasons; vacation spots will be
a 45-15 plan; five years later, an evaluation
less crowded.
showed that the year-round schedule had
effected a 4.1% reduction in per pupil cost,
Critics of year-round schools cite sev-
largely due to avoidance of constructionand
eral objections to year-round schools in
to more efficient use of existing facilities.
defending traditionalnine-monthcalendars.
Surprisingly, operating costs also fell
slightly, despite rising administrative costs.
-Operating costs may rise; adminis
Through skillful balance of extending and
trative workloads might in-
shortening contracts, teacher wages and
crease.
benefits actually decreased when calculated
-District services, such as special edu
per pupil.
cation and teacher workshops,
may be difficult to schedule.
Most school districts that record data
-Family life might be disrupted; year
also report savings, generally of one to three
round schools can complicate
percent (Shepard, 1975).
Prince William
child-care and vacation plans.
County School Di0.rict in Virginia saved an
-Children might be bored during va
estimated 4.2g in school facilities costs. Con-
cations because traditional
trary to critics' claims
that energy costs
options like summer camp and
increase in year-round schools, Prince Wil-
sports programs are often not
liam County found that when computed on a
available.
per pupil basis, these
expenditures were
about the same as in traditional schools
Determining which of the claimed
(Shepard, 1975). The oast of busing does not
advantages and disadvantages are in fact
have to rise, either, if the student tracks are
true requires a look at what has actually
determined along geographic lines.
happened in year-round schools. The au-
thors of this paper have been actively en-
Clearly, a year-round operation can
gaged in evaluating year-round programs
save a school district the capital outlay for
in Colorado for over a decade (Smith and
new buildings. But year-round schools are
Glass, 1975; Smith and Glass, 1976; George and
not always the bargain they appear to be.
Glass, 1982; George and Glass, 1983); they
For instance, the cost of transitioa can be
draw upon their own experience as well as
high: preliminary studies must be funded,
upon documents from some of the over one
public relations campaigns are often
hundred districts nationwide that have
launched, and the curriculum must be re-
implemented year-round programs. What
vised to fit the shorter school terms. Al of
follows is an attempt to summarize some of
this takes staff time away from other school
the findings.
business.
Transitioncosts are a one-time budget
DO YEAR ROUND SCHOOLS SAVE MONEY?
item. Increased operating costs, however,
are not. Conlrary to the Pajero Valley expe-
Conversion to a year-round schedule
rience, most districts report increased oper-
costs less than new buildings; three year-
ating costs after transition to the year-round
round schools can accommodate the enroll-
calendar. Secretarial and custodial contracts
Year-round Schools
3
EPSL Policy Briefs
Finally, as Smith and Glass (1975)
must be extended, as well as the services of
stressed in their evaluation of the Cherry
cooks, nurses, counselors, and school psy-
Creek District 5 (CO) program, year- round
chologists. Principals' workloads increase.
schools are not the only, and are certainly
One Colorado district found that it had to hire
vice-principals far its year-round elemen-
not the least expensive, cost-cutting option
tary schools. Opportunity costs must also be
for financially strapped, growing school dis-
considered. As the administrative burdens
tricts. Cheaper measures include schedul-
ing double sessions, and wing temporary
increase, the use of principals' time changes;
buildings. Redistributing the enrollment
their
management of other, and perhaps
such as
more important school concerns
by busing and redrawing attendance
bound
curriculum and personnel, may suffer.
arks can also relieve overcrowding. Before
choosing year-round operation, school dis-
In short, as the Stanford Research
tricts might also consider leasing space or
Institute concluded in a 1978 study (Pelavin,
services from neighboring districts or ex-
1979), year-round schools can save money if
panding existing buildings.
they are properly implemented. Behind this
If" are a great many considerations:
DO YEAR ROUND SCHOOLS IMPROVE ACA-
if year-round schools are operated at
DEMIC ACHIEVEMENT?
full capacity,
if tracks are mandated, not elective;
Year-round schools are principally a
if the district refuses to accommodate
cost-cutting measure. Therefore, the major
parents who prefer traditional
educational concern is that they not hinder
schools.
student achievement. There is no indication
if stiff contracts are efficiently ad
in available reports that achievement suf-
justed;
fers in year-round schools.
if community growth rates continue
to rise:
Cherry Creek District 5 implemented
if many, not few. schools are con
year-round schools in 1974. After one year,
verted to a year-round sched
student achievement in three year-round
schools was compared to achievement in tra-
then, savings are more likely to be
ditional calendar schools. Differences be-
realized.
tween standardized test scores in the two
types of schools were found to be insignifi-
Two cautions should be mentioned
cantly small even after matching pupils on
here. MorrisShepard, in reviewing twenty-
IQ. Similar findings are reported for the
four year-round programs, suggested that
year-round programs in Colorado and across
the attitude of the state government toward
the country. For example, examination of
year-round schools contributes to the suc-
three years of standardized test scores for
cess or failure of programs at the district
Mesa County Valley School District (CO) indi-
level (Shepard, 1975). The Francis Howell
cates that the year-round schedule does not
School District (MO) experienced difficulty
in any way interfere with learning.
in acquiring state aid and reimbursement
for its year-round expenses because Mis-
Many teachers and parents who favor
souri had enacted no legislation even recog-
year-round schedules believe that students
nizing the existence of year-round schools.
learn more and faster when the learning
Atlanta, (GA) schools faced similar prob-
process is interrupted for only short periods
legislature, on the
The California
lems.
of time, as it is on the 45-15 plan Even in
other hand, actively promotes year-round
Concept 6 schools as in Colorado Springs,
scheduling, and provides technical and fi-
Colorado, the majority of the teachers in
nancial assistance in implementing, oper-
year-round schools rates their pupils' vaca-
ating, and evaluating year-round programs.
tion learning loss as less severe than in
This may help to explain why California has
traditional schools (Shepard. 1975). Smith
more year-round schools than any other
and Glass attempted to substantiate teachers'
state.
perceptions in Cherry Creek District 5. They
found that although teachers in year-round
4
4
Year-round Schools
EPS'. Policy Briefs
schools spent less time reviewing pre-vaca-
progressively more positive as the program
tion material than teachers in nine-month
continued.
schools did. the actual achievement differ-
one a were insignificant on tests designed
The year-round schedule, however,
specifically to measure district objectives.
brings about inconveniences for manyfami-
In Mesa County. more than hail the
Another frequently cited educational
lies.
families with children in both year-round
advantage is that year- round schools facili-
elementary schools and traditional high
tate curricular innovation_ Indeed, of the
programs Shepard (1975) investigated,
schools felt that the different school sched-
twenty had changed the curriculum when
ules created serious problems. More than
they converted to the year-round schedule.
20% complained of the lack of recreational
In many schools, the curriculum must be
activities during vacation. Attitudes toward
tailored to the shorter
terms.
In others,
vacation planning were mixed. In Cherry
especially in smaller schools, instruction
Creek about one third of the parents felt that
year round schools complicated vacation
meg be individualized. S mith and Glass (1975)
fiend that the flexibility of the educational
arrangements, while one-half reported that
program greatly entributed to the effec-
vacations were easier to plan.
tiveness of the year-round program in
Year-round schools, then,
Cherry Creek.
Negative parent attitudes can be ag-
seem to stimulate development of individu-
gravated when thz, school districts, not the
alized, flexible, and innovative curricula,
parents, choose the children's tracks. For
but the change is not reflected directly in
example, families in Jefferson County, Colo-
student achievement.
redo, whose children were out of school in
September-October and March -April com-
DO YEAR ROUND SCHOOLS DISRUPT THE
plained bitterly about their lack of vacation
LIVES OF THOSE INVOLVED?
options. Children who have shortened sum-
mer :acations or even none at all may not be
Because year-round calendars differ
able to participate in summer rest cation
so radically from tradition, they must have
sports, or camps. This last ex-
programs,
the support cf the community in general and
ample illustrates the importance of district-
the parents in particular to succeed. For that
level commitment to the year-round calen-
reason, districts usually survey parent atti-
dar. If only a few schools convert. there is
tudes after imple mentation of the year-round
little reason for other community agencies
schedule. Cherry Creek District 5, for in-
to change their vacation programs to serve
stance, questioned over three hundred par-
children in year-round schools.
ents about inconveniences and advantages
after the first year of the program. About
Like parents, teachers in year-round
two-thirds of the parents reported a prefer-
schools have generally positive attitudes,
ence for the year-round schedule; 80% be-
ard their acceptance of the revised school
lieved it helpedchildren maintain more mo-
calendar increases over time. Teachers in
mentum for learning. Mesa County Valley
Mesa County Valley School District, for ex-
School District and other year- round schools
ample, reported having no problems with
nationwide report similar levels of parent
the vacation times of the year-round sched-
acceptance (George and Glass, 1983; Shepard,
ule. In fact, they felt that the more frequent
1975).
breaks of the year-round calendar reduced
burnout. The year-round calendar offers
The Pajero Valley School District polled
another advantage to teachers: it often cre-
almost one thousand parents after the fifth
ates the opportunity for them to work eleven
year of the year-round program. Responses
months a year. Many favor this option over
of parents whose children attended year-
seeking temporary jobs. Teachers experi-
round schools were compared with those
ence problems with year- round schools as
whose children followed the traditional cal-
well. Pajaro Valley teachers reported diffi-
endar. Both groups of parents were equally
culties coordinating schools' activities;
satisfied with the schools.
Interestingly,
Cherry Creek teachers need more time for
there were no differences in reported diffi-
long-term planning; and MesaCounty teach-
culty of arranging child care. The district
ers reported a weakening of staff camarade-
also found that parent attitudes had become
rie.
5
--T5)
Year-round Schools
EPSL Policy Briefs
LL2L4,
CONCLUSIONS
Year-round schools can work. They
can accomplish their principal goal of sav-
ing money by avoiding construction of new
They do not hinder student
buildings.
achievement, and they can become accept-
able to the majority of parents and teachers.
However, savings may never he real-
ized and the community may never accept
the year-round schedule if
the program is not coordinated with
parents' lives and
community activities.
the program is limited to one or two
schools on an experimental basis but
never broadened.
full enrollment is not achieved.
the school can not accommodate
greater individualization of the cur
riculum.
REFERENCES
Shepard, Morris and Mary Reed (1975).
Burnett, Robert W. (1978). A Study of Year-
Research Agenda for Year-Round
Round Schools, Volume I: Cost Analy
Schools: Executive Summary. Volume
sis. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo
Park, California.
I. Abt Associates Inc.,Ca tab ridge, Mass.
Shepard, Morris, Marry Reed, Julia Shepard,
George, Catherine and Gene V Glass (1982).
Gerald Goldman, Pat Griffin and Gerald
Evaluation Report on the Mesa County
Valley School Maria Year-Round
Vigneron( 1975). Year-Round Schools:
The Importance of Year-Round
School Program. Laboratory of Educa
Schools. Abt Associates, Inc., Cam
tional Research. University of Colo
bridge, Massachusetts.
redo, Boulder, Colorado.
Smith. Mary Lee and Gene V Glass (1975).
George, Catherine and Gene V Glass (1983).
Evaluation of Year- Round Schools,
Evaluation Report on the Mesa County
Cherry Creek District 5. Bureau of
Valley School District Year-Round
School Program.1982-83. Laboratory
Educational Field Services, University
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
of Educational Research. University
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
Smith, Mary Lee and Gene V Glass (1976).
Evaluation of Year-Round Schools,
Pelavin, Sol H. (1979). A study of Year-round
Cherry Creek District 5 Second Year
Schools. Volume I:Final Report.
FinalReport. Evaluation Research
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo
Services, University of Colorado, Boul
Park, CA.
der, Colorado,
