Would attending school on a 12-month calendar, rather than a 10-month calendar, benefit the school economically?

Topic:
Education Debates

19 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
37% of users

  • I agree that school should run for twelve months, as more families today have no one available for summer care for their children.

    Many families have dual incomes or a single parent who works full time, and finding reasonable priced child care over the summers is very difficult, putting a strain on these families. In addition, our school system often has difficulty meeting educational requirements in the existing school structure. Changing how we educate our children, the time given in face-to-face teaching, along with providing families more support, would assist in meeting educational goals, relieving social and community pressure regarding appropriate child care, and keep more children safe and away from negative influences.

    Yes MindlessDominick98

  • I agree that attending school on a 12-month calendar would provide an economic benefit, because the school building costs money to maintain even if school is out.

    In a ten-month school year, the school sits vacant for two months. However, that doesn't mean that the school is not maintained during those two months. It must still be kept clean, safe, and temperature-controlled in order to be in working order during the school year. That means that for those two months of the year, the district pays for a school building that no one uses. It would be a better use of that money for the school to be in use, rather than sitting vacant.

    Yes R0dHood

  • A 12-month school year would provide economic benefit to schools directly by making full use of their physical facilities and their personnel.

    The original purpose of having a school year with a 3 month "vacation" was to allow children to return to work on farms during the growing/harvesting season. We were an agrarian society then. Since then we have, somewhat mindlessly, continued to base the length of our school year on farms that no longer exist. It is obvious that it is not a good thing to have educational facilities standing vacant for 1/4 of the year. This is an expense that no other organization, business or government agency would tolerate. Imagine the outcry and indignation if the Mayor of a major city decided to close all city offices from June until September? Cities would go out of business, companies would go bankrupt. We have a public education system that is bankrupt and close to going out of business. In addition to the monetary savings of a 12-month school year, there are other benefits: -our children might finally be competitive with those of other industrialized countries -parents would no longer be obligated to find "busy work" for children during the summer -we could legitimately increase teachers' teaching salaries instead of making them find temporary jobs to sustain them over the summer months.

    Yes CI3Iike

  • I agree that attending a school on the 12 month calendar would benefit the school economically because it would increase student test scores and achievement, thus bringing in additional revenue for the school.

    Studies and stats show that year round school increases test scores and approves student achievement. Then, money would increase to the schools, since both their test scores and achievement would approve (per No Child Left Behind.) Less money would need to go into restructuring, and test prep. This would save the school districts money, and allow the teachers to focus on great teaching.

    Yes JayceC

  • Year-round schooling has many benefits, as it is more economically sound, would reduce the amount of review after a long break, and would enable parents to take vacations at different times of the year.

    If done correctly, there can be economic benefits to year round schooling. Many models have the same number of days to the school year, but with shorter, more frequent breaks. This model would give parents the ability to take vacations at different times, and would prevent the loss of learning that happens each summer. My mother in law, a former elementary school teacher, said that the first six weeks of school was spent reteaching the previous year's material. That seems wasteful.

    Yes K_Frye

  • There are definitely monetary benefits to running school on a 12 month calendar. This method greatly reduces the amount of review that is necessary for students to retain their knowledge.

    There are definitely monetary benefits to running the school on a 12 month calendar. This method says money in a number of ways. First, it allows for greater flexibility in dealing with winter weather. The snow day and school closing issues are better and the school system doesn't have to scramble to avoid losing funds due to closures. It also reduces the amount of review that is necessary for the students to retain what they have learned because they are in school year round.

    Yes TasticBran

  • Yes, year around school would be beneficial to many students.

    If students go to school all year around, they have to be more disciplined and orderly all year, as opposed to a few months of complete freedom. I believe that if a kid always has a daily obligation such as school or work, this keeps the kid away from things they shouldn't be involved in. This is beneficial on a mental level if anything.

    Yes D Callahan
Voice Your Opinion
No
63% of users

  • I do not think a 12-month calendar year would be more economically beneficial than a 10-month calendar year, because they still have to go the same number of days.

    I do not think that it would save any money by having a 12-month calendar year over a 10-month calendar year. The days in school would still be the same, the utilities would still need to be on, and the teachers would still get paid the same amount.

    No FemaleTyron73

  • A 12-month calendar would not benefit schools economically, because it would mean higher labor costs.

    On a 10-month calendar, many schools rely on part-time help for their non-teaching positions. Custodians, cafeteria workers and bus drivers usually have part-time jobs that are somewhere between seasonal and annual employment. If they were to become 12-month positions, many of these employees would demand full-time jobs. Even if the pay were no higher, the benefits that go with full-time jobs would cost the school considerably more.

    No FlakyHerb64

  • Attending school on a 12 month rather than 10 month calendar would not benefit a school economically because of the costs of school lunches and other amenities.

    As of now, schools only have to feed students during ten months of the year. Adding two more months to be responsible for feeding the children would add unnecessary cost for little or no bonus. Children would not be as interested in school if it was every day of the year, and they would get burnt out and not do as well, causing a decline in funding. Also, the school would have to pay for people to work in the cafeteria over the summer.

    No FullRobby84

  • The government is already putting limits on grant money for our schools, so I don't think they can afford to have school year-around.

    The school my son attends starting cutting extra programs for students and even the amount of food they get at lunch. If they can't afford to feed my child, they sure can't afford to have school year-round.

    No BumpyRay88

  • Too many resources would be required for school to run 12 months.

    Schools would not benefit economically from having a 12-month calendar rather than a 10-month calendar. Teachers' salaries would have to be increased, as many of them work second jobs in the summer. Operating expenses would increase because power, water and other utilities would be needed year round. Lastly, schools would spend more in other areas like summer sports and crossing guards.

    No TedieDelight

  • I believe that attending school for a 12-month calendar would harm the school economically, because it would force schools to operate year-long, raising their costs.

    Having a school operate for 12 months, instead of just 10 in a year, forces the school to pay higher teacher wages, as well as maintenance for the school. It is not economically beneficial to keep a school open for the entire year, especially with budgets for schools already so low.

    No BDanielle

  • I believe having schools open year round will end up costing much more money rather than saving money.

    While having school in session for two additional months can create some revenue it will cost more to run schools for two months extra. Teachers will have to be paid, more school lunches will have to be provided, school buses will have to run, and the administrators will have to be paid for the additional months.

    No 54nShaI

  • i need help would

    would a 12 month school shcedule benifit a student socaly

    No Anonymous

  • Attending school on a 12 month calendar instead of a 10 month calendar would increase costs to the school districts.

    There have been many studies suggesting that students would retain more of what they learn if a 12 month calendar school year was implemented. This may be true but in response to the economic impact on the school district this would definitely place a great deal of increased expense on the school districts. A few of the expense would be transportation costs involved with busing students year round instead of 10 months. Also maintenance cost would increase as well as the cost of support staff such as cafeteria worker and teachers aides who are employed on a part time basis on a 10 month schedule.

    No AndreaS

  • No, but it would benefit parents and teachers finances.

    Economically, the school would carry a larger financial burden. It would have to bear the burden of the cost of operating for two more months than usual. But, the financial burden on the school should not be the deciding factor when considering a 12-month school schedule. Even though the school would not directly benefit financially from a year long schedule, the teachers would possibly make more money and the parents could save on summer childcare expenses. The financial gain of the teachers and parents just might mean financial gain for the school.

    No MohaI0v35

  • A 12-month school year would cost more because you'd need to employ the faculty for an extra two months, raising salaries, and putting more burden on taxpayers.

    Having school last all year long wouldn't benefit the school systems at all. It would mean paying all of the employees their full salaries for an extra two months of the year. All of the teachers, administrators, the custodial staff, the cafeteria workers, would be on the job and requiring paychecks. Schools can't afford this added financial burden, since most of them have budgetary woes to begin with.

    No PinkMych

  • It is not economically beneficial for a school to operate 12 months rather than 10 months because of the overhead costs.

    All schools have overhead costs such as lighting and heat or air conditioning or running the cafeteria, that can be partially eliminated by closing the school for two months out of the year. Other costs that are eliminated by closing for two months are fuel for school buses and their drivers.

    No Nik0Interior
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Would attending school on a 12-month calendar, rather than a 10-month calendar, benefit the school economically?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource