Currently active in the Washington State Senate is a bill that would pilot a year-round school program in the state. Washington Senate Bill 5147:
At the request of the board, a briefing has been prepared with the purpose of educating the board on year-round education.
Year-round Education has been around for many years. Initially, year-round education began as an option to address overcrowded facilities. School calendars typically average 180 instructional days. Many days of the year, facilities sit unused by students.
In the 4 track schedule, students and teachers are divided into four tracks or schools within a school. Three of those tracks are in school at any given time. Students attend school in 45-day “terms” and have 15 days between each term. The school is used 240 days of the year as opposed to the more typical 180 days. This allows for a 25% increase in the number of students that a school is able to accommodate.
The concept of Year-Round School Schedules has been around for a great many years. It gained popularity following the publication of “Prisoners of Time” in April 1994. Prisoners of Time was the summary of recommendations of the National Educational Commission on Time and Learning. This report argues that there is a fundamental design flaw in education because we expect all students to attain high levels of achievement, but the most important variable, instructional time, is constant and determined by the length of the school day and school year.
The Year-Round school calendar seeks to address the time variable by creating a school calendar that provides opportunities for some students to extend the time they spend learning by providing multiple extended breaks during which extended learning is offered. By way of example, in a year-round school calendar, the “A term” may run from the Middle of August to Thanksgiving. The “B Term” from the first of January to the end of March, and the “C term” from the end of April to the end of June. Rather than providing all of the supplemental educational supports during the “terms,” schools set aside some of the funds from Title I, LAP, SpEd, ELL, High Cap, etc., to support “Intercession Instruction” for students who need support or extension of learning. These intercessions, typically two-week instructional blocks, are scheduled, in the example above— between Thanksgiving and Christmas, in April, and at the end of July. In this calendar, there are still significant opportunities for school breaks. Three weeks in December, a week in April, two weeks in July, and two weeks in August. This is a sample of what a YRE calendar for 2022-2023 may look like.
The following are excellent short briefings on Year-Round Schooling:
In theory, this model has great promise to improve students' outcomes, particularly for students who need additional time and support to meet high educational standards. In the late 1990s, many districts implemented year-round calendars. Some districts implemented them K-12, while others implemented them at the K-5 or K-8 levels. In the years since, there has been a growing body of research on the impacts of YRE on student outcomes. Does YRE actually improve outcomes for students?
In 2019 researchers from Michigan State University did a meta-analysis titled “Single-track year-round education for improving achievement in U.S. K-12”: Results of a Meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is not original research, rather it is an analysis of multiple original studies. Well done meta-analyses are regarded as generally more predictive than any individual research study. The researchers found:
“Students at single‐track YRE schools show modestly higher achievement in both math and reading—by a magnitude similar to estimates of summer learning loss —but comparable proficiency. Unexpectedly, the effect was no greater for historically disadvantaged students. Math effects may be larger in the middle than elementary school, but the reason is unclear. Importantly, studies of schools that shortened summer to the fewest weeks showed the largest effects in both subjects.”
Arguably the impacts of year-round schooling are modest. The experience of districts that have implemented modified school calendars is mixed. Some districts find great success and have a long and sustained history with year-round schooling, while others have abandoned the model and returned to a traditional calendar.
In reviewing resources for this briefing, I found an excellent document, “Year-Round Education,” prepared by the University of Rhode Island for the Providence Public Schools. This report addresses the question, “Would a Year-Round Calendar be a good option for Providence Public Schools?” This is an excellent review of YRE that ultimately concludes:
“...The evidence from the literature suggests that there is a minimal significant difference in student achievement and test scores between year-round schooling and traditional options. There is also little evidence of improvement in student achievement and test scores, specifically amongst racial minorities, English Language Learners, and low socio-economic status students in year-round schools. While finding very few benefits, studies have also found that the many problems with implementing year-round calendars: including the cost of parental disapproval, students switching schools, and teacher dissatisfaction, outweigh the potential gains of year-round schools.
In conclusion, it is our recommendation that the costs associated with transitioning to year-round calendar schools are too large. There is also a lack of consistent evidence that students will academically benefit from the switch from traditional to a year-round calendar, therefore the Providence Public School District should not transition to year-round education.”
On Saturday, March 6 the Seattle times reported on the Year Round Schooling Bill