Lon wrote:
> The debate over year-round schools has always struck me as an example of
> how poorly people analyze, debate, and resolve complex issues. For
> instance:
>
> 1. The traditional American school calendar AND year-round schedules are
> only two of hundreds of education options available.
>
> 2. Even if the debate was limited to these two options, they are not
> mutually exclusive.
>
> 3. The issue in the debate is really about scheduling time for school
> children to be in a specific place. This is an argument about form, not
> function.
I' d agree with all of this. There are a jazillion things that need
changing in schools . Simply going to a year round schedule without a
change in methods will do nothing to furthur learning. This is similar to
block scheduling (extended time periods ex: 4 clases per day vs 7 classes
per day) -- the longer exposure will do nothing without changes in
methodology. I don't thing that year round schooling is a cure-all but at
the same time time I don't see a coherent argument for maintaining the 9
month agrarian status quo.
Just some thoughts.
Paul
prkosuth@mychoice.net
OPINIONS ARE MY OWN
Brehm Preparatory School
Carbondale IL
--"prkosuth" <prkosuth@mychoice.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>