If it's good enough for the General Assembly, it's good enough for our kids.
Downstate
· 2 years ago
They probably should but it's not feasable for some schools. Still no A/C in alot of your older schools down here. Kids would roast
So Ill
· 2 years ago
Absolutely.
But it can't happen, for a couple of reasons:
-- teacher salaries should be increased respectively, which means about a 25% increase, which the state can't afford.
-- many school buildings remain without air conditioning, so they would need to be retrofitted. The state can't pay for crumbling buildings, let alone improvements to those crumbling buildings.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
Yes, but would you want to be on the third floor of an unairconditioned school building at this time of the year? Temperatures often raise about 100 degrees even during the regular school year.
We would have to provide schools that can be open during the summer. We would have to provide more money for teachers. We would have to provide more money for administrators. Please don't pretend that they would or should, do these additional months without a higher salary - you wouldn't, would you?
So while it sounds all fine and dandy, we are talking about a 40% higher costs for schools in infastructure improvements and other costs.
We can't even come up with enough money now. What makes anyone think we can come up with an additional 40% every year after such we go year-round?
Siyotanka
· 2 years ago
So.Il. Some teachers are paid on a yearly basis (12 monthes of checks) for the 9 mos. they work. I can see your reasoning though. It would limit summer work time for HS students, but I am in favor for year round schooling. Keep their attention on school instead of "other" activities.
Against
· 2 years ago
I am against year around school. The kids need a break. While I agree that some kids do back pedal it is easily fixed with a little work from parents. Each day my kids do 1 hour of school work during the summer. I just buy a workbook at the beginning for summer for the next year of school. It keeps them up on telling time, reading, etc. In the meantime, they have the ability to play baseball, soccer, go on vacations, visits grandparents, belong to a pool and do all the things kids are supposed to do. They already grow up too fast and have to work for the rest of their lives.
Siyotanka
· 2 years ago
I would ask this question, for the 40% increase in costs, what would the results be...40% increase in scores, better students, etc.? Maybe we would reap what we sowed...
So Ill
· 2 years ago
Siyo, I understand how teachers are paid. But look at it in a practical way -- the unions would never agree to year-round schooling without a commensurate bump in pay. Just a fact of life.
Plus, I'm one who thinks teachers are underpaid to begin with.
Twentieth Grader
· 2 years ago
I think it's obvious that younger children no longer need the long summer break. While I agree with "against" that kids need a break, I think they need more breaks. WHen I was growing up, my mother always complained that she could never take me to New England to watch the leaves turn, because we had no fall break. Why can't we have a shorter summer break, an actual fall break and a longer winter break, to make the Holiday season a little less hectic.
That being said, High Schoolers still need to work during the summer and take advantage of several internship opportunities. The first one that comes to mind for a blog about government would be the U.S. Pages, though there are many, many others.
So, younger kids yes, older kids no.
And I agree with So Ill, teachers are under paid anyway. This might be a good excuse to raise it.
Zooey
· 2 years ago
This is kind of a pointless remark, but the first line of this article is incorrect, brand-new second graders /shouldn't/ be able to tell time --at least around here, because they learn how to read an analog clock in 3rd grade.
I can see where a year-round school would have benefits, but I just can't support it. As already mentioned, kids need time off.
Levois
· 2 years ago
I wouldn't mind if elementary schools were year around. High schools I don't think should be. I think year around might help most of these kids maintain the basics that are supposed to be learned at that time.
High schoolers are usually more mature and they're going to be taking on more responsibilities. Especially work. So it wouldn't bother me if they didn't go to school year around.
Some of the fiscal aspect of this scheme, at least those brought up in the comments, are certainly worth looking into and working out somehow.
Plutocrat03
· 2 years ago
Not an easy question to answer. Thousands of families know how to cope with the current system, it would seem prudent to have a beter defined promise in exchange for such a radical schedule.
I believe in Las Vegas, they went to a year round schedule so that they could get more kids in a school by rotating the months off......
Kids and parents do need a break from the gind, but perhaps rather than 3 months off in one chunk, a sort of quarterly system with 3-4 week breaks between session. Should cut down on the backsliding.
Of course the infrastructure problem remains. You could phase it into the schools that are OK and if it is desireable uprades should be proposed and funded that way.
As far as a general statement from so ill, teachers in our area of the state are reasonably compensated considering their salaries and spectacularly compensated when you consider their pensions. Experienced teachers run between 80 and 110K. I do not believe that there is a compensation problem in our area, but I do not know about the other parts of the state.
Squideshi
· 2 years ago
The Green Party of British Columbia just proposed this last month. It seems like they're wrestling with exactly the same issue in the Canadian provinces as we are here in the states.
Will County Wiseguy
· 2 years ago
There is certainly merit in the proposal to require "year-round" schooling for K-12 (10 weeks on, 3 weeks off)from an educational perspective. However, in discussing this proposal you need to consider the plight of most parents these days. Economic circumstances now require most parents to work full-time, thus making child care a necessity. The families with young school-age children who count on schools to be their "child care" providers from August through May would have to make arrangements for child care for every 3 week break during the year. Unlike some countries, we do not have low or no-cost quality child care for all. This is truly unfortunate and another example of how our lawmakers and policymakers talk a good game about caring for children, but rarely come through.
The issue of high school kids needing to work summers to save for college is also compelling. High school students could attend year-round school if a college education was affordable. However, unlike some countries, we have made college unnecessarily cost-prohibitive for many kids. Our lawmakers have also ignored (until very recently) the unfair and unethical practices of the college loan industry acting in collaboration with some sleazy college administrators.
In short, I'd be in favor of year-round school if we had (1) affordable and available quality child care for all and (2)a system that allows all students who deserve a chance at continuing their education past high school a fair and affordable way to fulfill that dream. I'm not holding my breath for either to happen any time soon.
Nearly Normal
· 2 years ago
Many teachers use the summer for graduate oourses and workshops to prepare for the next school year. If year-round schools become a reality, the univerities will have to adjust their schedules to fit in more short courses of three weeks duration instead of the usual eight week summer session.
I also used the time to catch up on my professional reading--the books and magazines that I didn't get read during the school year.
It was a boon for me when I was younger in that I got a part time job for the summer to cover for vacationers or do special projects. There were other colleagues of mine who had part-time jobs during the school year that would then work full time in the summer so that others could take their vacations.
There used to be funding for summer school that came from the state. After that was eliminated, some districts cut way back on summer schools unless they could get a grant. More affluent districts had funding that could be plugged into the budget for summer school.
My former high school employer did offer summer school classes that had a fee attached. That fee paid the salary of the teacher and if the class did not meet minimum enrollment, it was not offered. Civics and driver ed were very popular but it was often hard to convince sudents who failed a course to retake it over the summer. Classes were in the mornings so the students could work afternoons or evenings if need be.
That was a good way for a student to retake a failed course or get a requirement out of the way.
So Ill
· 2 years ago
Nearly Normal offers another good point. Aren't Illinois teachers already required to get something like 100 credit hours in a 5-year period to maintain certification? When would they have the chance to do that?
Jerry
· 2 years ago
The real reason for summers off, i believe, was for kids to have time to work on the family farm. That concept would seem to be past its time, yet kids still get summers off. So, yes, year round schooling is a good idea that's taken too long to implement. Of course, all schools will need to be air conditioned.
If teachers work the same number of actual days (thanks to shifting schooling schedules and breaks around), then any pay raise would be minimal. The real protest would be that many teachers like their summers off just as much as students do. I know teachers who use summers off to work another job for a while, or take grad school courses, or travel. So, that may be where the real protest will come into play.
But its an idea that should have been implemented long ago.
Nearly Normal
· 2 years ago
Plutocrat3-- Teacher salaries are not the same across the state. I never made the a salary like that you mention. I know of teachers who never made more than half of the numbers you toss about.
And, remember, teacher retirees paid into that pension for their entire career. If a teacher had other professions and paid into social security, the SS payment is dramatically reduced.
I have had good people tell me that they would not teach after early retirement because they would not teach long enough to get a good TRS pension and they did not want to jeopardize their social security pension.
Diamond Dog
· 2 years ago
If it's good enough for Legislators, then its good enough for second graders.
FED UP
· 2 years ago
Yes schools should be year round. This country is falling behind because our education system is not keeping up with the rest of the world.
Education in IL
· 2 years ago
The ten weeks on, three weeks off (with a little longer break over the holidays) has the same number of weeks of off time as the current schedule, so it wouldn't increase the cost unless school districts did training during part of the off weeks to make up for in-service learning that currently happens now, which they should.
Air conditioning is an issue, but most schools HVAC systems are so outdated that the initial capital investment to update the HVAC and improve insulation in schools would actually save money--even with air conditioning--and improve air quality.
Universities and colleges would adapt to whatever schedule the school districts imposed--continued education is revenue positive for them, especially as they attract their ed. grads to their CEU courses.
Most problems listed in previous comments could be addressed. I think we should go to a year round schedule, with the school year beginning in January and ending in December. It is far more sensible. The most intractible problem, however, is the perception that 'kids need the time off'. There is this 'easy summer' myth that exists amongst middle class Americans that would be nigh impossible to overcome. In general, we are reluctant to change what we know, no matter how impractical and dysfunctional our current system is.
In addition, there is the sentimental idea that childhood should be this idyllic time. This is a recent thought. Of course, healthy, active childhoods are necessary for productive, healthy adulthoods, but too many have almost fetishized childhood. Children have an innate capacity for learning, the curiosity to explore, and the energy to do it. Finally, For many children in Illinois and nationwide, school is the safest, happiest place for them.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
Of course it's not possible. It would probably be more effective for students and education as a whole. So we need to come up with politics and other nonsense for reasons why it can't be done.
Papa Legba
· 2 years ago
The kids need a break? What about the teachers? How many people posting here would want to control 20-25 kids year around? Count me out on that one. My two kids have driven me crazy by the end of July.
Zooey
· 2 years ago
plutocrat, where did you get your numbers? The highest paid teacher at my areas High School earns mid 60k a year, not nearly your 80-110k.
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
With more and more parents working, with more and more kids becoming obese and with more and more of our nation's students falling farther behind other countries, year-round school is necessary. But necessity does not always guarantee our leaders will fund any initiatives. You would have to pay teachers more in terms of salary and benefits; insurance and operational expenses would increase; and air conditioning must be mandated. My high school was built with a.c. ducts and it was never actually used; we got out early any time the temp was over 85.
One thing that would need to be kept in check if year-round school was impleted would be administrative salaries. School administrators in Illinois make way too much. Springfield 186 just hired a superintendent and his starting salary is - gulp! - $220,000. That's obscene. If we do not curtail this trend, we will never have the funds to pay for additional summer costs.
Southern Right
· 2 years ago
It should be about the children, not the staff. It seems to work in other areas of the country. Let's study it and if it really is better for our youth, figure out how to make it work.
A plus baker
· 2 years ago
The rest of us work year round -- why not the teachers.
ArchPundit
· 2 years ago
The research is clear that year around schooling improves student performance. The amount of time in class isn't much different since there are usually shorter breaks positioned around the year.
The reason shorter breaks make sense is that students tend to fall back quite a bit on skills over a longer summer break, but much less so in say 4 or 6 week increments.
The logistics aren't nearly as difficult as everyone makes it out to be. First, summer classes are standards in many schools already, it would simply be an increase in the number of students. If a school isn't running summer remedial programs at a miminum, than they should be.
We should be air conditioning those schools anyway. Teacher pay would have io increase, but marginally so. Many already work summers and their total time off is about the same with year around schooling. The difference is more about not having the time all at once-which is problematic for those who work summer jobs. Even with that, people adapt.
Deb
· 2 years ago
My grandchildren came from a 9 month school schedule to a year around school schedule. We are finding tht the year around schedule is better for the kids. I understand there are many things to consider in year around school, but believe that if incorporated slowly it would benefit the kids in the long run. So if possible all schools should look at the idea to see if there might be a way to incorporate year around school.
Fan of the Game
· 2 years ago
Year-round schooling does not provide for more instructional days. Illinois requires 176 of them, and most schools have CBAs that cover that amount. Schools--like Riverton, for example--that have "balanced" schedules still attend 176 days, but the breaks are spread throughout the year isntead of being bunched together in the summer. The thought is that more frequent but shorter breaks will allow students to retain more between grades.
So, you wouldn't have to pay teachers or administrators more since they would be working the same number of days. There are other logistics that might cause such a plan to fail--air conditioning being one that has been mentioned--but the idea could work.
opinionated
· 2 years ago
The problem with our current school schedule is not only that children forget the skills they learned the year before, but they also forget the behavior that is appropriate for the classroom. My mother was an elementary school teacher and would remark how long it would take young students, particularly those with some behavior issues, to re-learn 'classroom behavior' and what a waste it was to cause teachers to re-teach that every year.
What always gets lost in this discussion is - the amount of vacation is the same, it's just distributed equally. 3-week breaks are more appropriate for young children, and in a year-round schedule the breaks are more equally distributed throughout the year. And so logically, there's no mandate to increase teacher pay when you change systems (although I would always advocate that teachers deserve more pay).
hollyringo
· 2 years ago
In our school district we’ve had the year round calendar for three years. To my knowledge, we are using the same number of days as the previous school calendar, therefore, no more days with students in the buildings as the previous system so I can’t imagine that the teachers would get that much more of a pay increase. For the record they deserve more pay for the job they do (if they are doing it well).
Two months of vacation in the summer is quite enough, and by the time October rolls around everyone is ready for a two-week break. There is another two-week break at Christmas and one in Spring. Regardless of the breaks, the school is operating as usual anyway. My son, who is active in sports, is practicing year round, and really doesn’t get a break, except for our MANDATORY family vacation in July.
The building upgrades were the hardest task to address, however, our neighboring school district is just now looking at a year round calendar, and are wincing at the costs to upgrade the buildings. They wish they had addressed the issue earlier.
Year round calendars are for the best in terms of student performance (our test scores increased over the last two years) and I believe that parents who are moving into new school systems for one reason or another, will look for a school district that has a year round calendar. It could only benefit Illinois for the whole state to be on the year round system.
Glendale
· 2 years ago
We need to remember the reason for the present schedule. It is related to the fact that our country was an agricultural country and the farmers needed their children for laborers. As of now the state requires approximately 180 days of attendance per year for students. None of the proposals that I have heard about require more than the state minimum. The number of days that the teacher would have to work would not increase unless the state minimum is increased. No increase in salary would then be necessary. There would be breaks between the terms. By the way, two of my children are teachers.
pickles!!
· 2 years ago
Kids in Japan and many other nations go to school year round, why can't kids in this country do it.
Some private schools have tried to go with the four day class scedule, where kids would go to school monday through thursday year round, and have fridays off.
Problem is, kids get a lot more homework now, and with after school activities, and sports, many are already involved in school activites six days a week and go yearround anyway. And with technolgy now, classes could be taught online during summer months. Colleges do it, why can't others.
reader
· 2 years ago
I am a parent. I am opposed to year round schools. The kids need the break to get to be kids. My kids read over the summer. We even do math problems. My kids get straight A's. I think it is MY job as a parent to make sure they don't backslide. They get time with grandparents, get to stay up late. As they get older, every "break" they would get in year round schools is stolen by sports if they are at all involved. Yes, it is hard in a 2 parent working family to coordinate the summer but I do it. I just wish the government would leave us alone. Stop changing when they can drive and when they go to school. Encourage people you know on a personal level, offer to help out if you have the time, and tell the government to GET OUT OF MY FAMILY!
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 2 years ago
Regarding salaries:
According to the State Board of Education, average teacher salaries at Alan Locke Elementary are $43K a year, $20K LESS than Chicago Public School average. Before someone uses that figure to bash teacher's unions, keep in mind that the average CPS teacher has 13 years experience while the average Locke teacher has 4 years experience, which probably accounts for a big part of the salary difference.
Still, I don't think its fair to assume that year-round schools are achievable only with a massive salary increase.
Regarding student performance:
And, despite a student population that is 89% low-income and 95% black or hispanic (CPS is 85% and 86% respectively), Locke students are outperforming CPS's traditional students on almost every standardized test of basic skills.
That said, I'm a big fan of local control (part of the reason for charter public school success), and would suggest that rather than mandate year-round schools, the state provide incentives and financial support for school districts that want to go to year-round.
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 2 years ago
PS to pickles! -
I'm all for eliminating the "mandatory homework" requirement for students. Homework makes sense some times for some students in some curricula, but its become a "make work" mandate that places unnecessary burdens on students, parents and teachers.
Many Teachers Work Summers
· 2 years ago
Except for those teachers who were married and viewed summers off with their kids as a way to be stay-at-home moms for 1/4 of the year, most teachers I've known WORK another job in the summer. Yes, there is an option to have a lower paycheck year around so as to receive 12 months of pay. But in many areas of Illinois teachers are paid as if they are seasonal employees. If we make the school year run through the full 12 months, with shorter breaks, teachers will not be able to take jobs to supplement their income. That means they should be paid like full-time professionals. That means an increase in taxes. I don't think there is a groundswell of support in Illinois to raise taxes.
winco
· 2 years ago
no. I support shutting down everything else in the summer, too. We all should get summers off.
Enemy of the State
· 2 years ago
Nobody has mentioned the extra cost of support staff. Bus drivers, cooks, custodians, etc. all would need extra compensation. Fuel and utility costs would also increase. If you think the Japanese do such a great job, send your kid to Japan. Check out the sixth grade suicide rate in the Land of the Rising Sun before you buy that ticket.
Cal Skinner
· 2 years ago
It would save money on new buildings.
Sage observer
· 2 years ago
How would all of the farm work get done? This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of -- for decades, family farms have been pressured by low prices, foreign imports, skyrocketing fuel prices, and developers encroaching on our land -- and now someone wants to come and keep our kids in school during prime daylight hours? There's no way all of the fieldwork will get done, and everyone in the state will starve.
Rebel13
· 2 years ago
Salaries would not or should not go up. My sister teaches in California which has year-round schools.
They have 4 tracts, which is 3 mo on, 1 mo off (go to school may,june,july-off aug and so forth on a rotationg schedule)and they follow it just like their students so they still get 3 mo off every year. This allows better used of the fixed facilities since they are being utilized all year.
High School is still traditional due to college requirements.
One problem as mentioned above is air conditioning which would be a requirement for this to work. Southern California can get away with it since they have nicer weather year-round. Imagine you are on the track that goes to school on June,July,Aug, off sept, in-school oct,nov,dec off jan, in school feb,mar,apr off may. Yuck!
c-rock
· 2 years ago
who wants to trust their kids to government schools all year? I rather not trust them for such. They done enough damage to our kids.
Gregor
· 2 years ago
Long as they can get out of class for Deer and Turkey Seasons, right?:-)
I'm for year-round school with appropriate shorter vacations spread out in the year. I could actually do more fun things with the family in that kind of situation, regarding travel opportunities and time off from work.
I also believe the actual education they get would be better without the first 2-3 months being review and remedial.
We'd need a massive capital infusion to get the schools configured for the AC, and the energy costs of that are nothing to sneeze at either.
But it's nothing that can't be overcome. Biggest problem is psychological, overcoming about a century of habit and outmoded tradition.
Kevin Highland
· 2 years ago
My kids attend a "year round school" There are no additional days of school per year just that the summer is spread throughout the year. I've seen better grades out of my children since this calendar was instituted...they seem to be less bored with school and say they are ready to go back after the "summer break". I've noticed they forget less between grades also!
ArchPundit
· 2 years ago
====I’ve known WORK another job in the summer. Yes, there is an option to have a lower paycheck year around so as to receive 12 months of pay. But in many areas of Illinois teachers are paid as if they are seasonal employees. If we make the school year run through the full 12 months, with shorter breaks, teachers will not be able to take jobs to supplement their income.
More and more this is moving towards having teachers doing different kinds of work in the school over the summer. 11 month contracts or 9+2 or 3 are very common. It's far more common to expect teachers to be getting a masters or working in their district than to work random summer jobs. It's a professional occupation and so teachers treat it like one.
There will still be plenty of side jobs to work in the shorter vacations as well. ETS still needs graders for AP exams, standardized test grading, teaching workshops, etc. Masters programs already work on customized schedules for teachers so those programs will simply adopt to the new schedule.
It's a bit hard to understand the rather strange opposition to year around school. The only reason the current summer schedule exists is because it was created to adapt to an agrarian economy based on family farms. Family farms don't exist in anything similar to that form and while agriculture plays a role in the economy, it's not an agrarian based society.
Old Year-Round Kid
· 2 years ago
I went to year round schools overseas. At about the time I got tired of being in school we got a 3 week break. About the time I was bored at home, we went back to school. It was great to have a long Christmas break. You get to enjoy the seasons instead of just the summer. (We went Jan-Dec.)
Schools are doing it - which means it works and the trend will likely continue, just like uniforms in middle schools in Springfield. The school board was upset because they didn't sanction a district-wide policy for dress code, but it happened school by school because it worked.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
It seems to me that if this is an effort to improve the bottom quarter of students, why not keep those children in school during the summer and perhaps the next quarter as well, and let the top half of students have the time off to pursue other interests? That way the money is being spent in a way that is most likely to pay off. A straight A student doesn't need the schedule jockeying and likely has the tools to educate himself on various topics during the summer break.
The schools should be ugpraded with air conditioning anyway, due to the number of children with health concerns. Also, some Sept days are awful warm and as are some May and early June days.
Sanchez
· 2 years ago
Teachers in Central IL are paid well. They work 9 months out of the year for 12 months of pay. I am sick of hearing them whine about being underpaid. I know alot of people with college degrees who dont make in the mid to high $30's while they are still in there 20's, like most of them do and they work year round. They can also further their education and make much more. Stop whining!!!!!
Cardsfan
· 2 years ago
My wife works on the House staff and has for years and all of her teacher friends make more than her and they dont work 500 hours of free overtime during session.
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
Enemy, I mentioned operational expenses. Paying cooks, maintenance men and custodians would require tweaks to each CBA, and there would be the increase in food, gas, supplies, etc.
Cermak, I think you are on to something. However, schools should offer supplemental or advanced classes for better students as a way to bolster their learning and study skills as well as possibly earning college credits.
The interesting comment I used to hear from some of the poor students is that they hated summer school and how it was unfair. Two points on this contention. First, if you screw up, you should have to correct your mistakes. Second, a worker in the real world would not be allowed to make a blunder and then not go back to fix the problem.
We have turned our students into lazy, arrogant kids. These same kids are our future. Scary.
annoyed all the time
· 2 years ago
It is a good idea to keep the elementary school kids thinking and not falling back however, i agree on the AC issue in the summer heat which can be tweaked to have maybe 4 -5 week break in the summer months. However, for working parents this creates a difficult situation where now there are summer camps for the kids to go to - if there were 3 week breaks all year round there wouldhave to be supporting programs for kids who have 2 working parents. High School should have summer off to accommodate athletic programs as well as allowing them time to work in the summer and to take it one step further it would be wonderful to see some type or work/vounteer/camp counselor requirement for high school kids - motivation!!!!!
Mr. W.T. Rush
· 2 years ago
Hey Cardsfan: Better check up on the old lady No one has worked any overtime :)
A Teacher
· 2 years ago
I want to know who thinks teachers actually get a break over the summer? We still have professional development to keep up with the ever-changing state regulations, a master's degree to earn so that our pay keeps up with other occupations with the same years of experience, and when we finish with that, we have to write our curriculum for the next year's classes. When do we get to rest, because if we do, I must have missed something! P.S. Where do teachers make $80k+ because I am DEFINITELY in the wrong district!
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 2 years ago
FYI, as the Sun-Times points out, while most year-round schools actually have the same number of instructional days, Alaine Locke Charter Academy has 20 more days of instruction. Their school day also goes all the way until 5 p.m., something I'm sure that working parents appreciate, as well as the neighborhood.
jake
· 2 years ago
There is a saying, "If you think education is expensive, compare it to the cost of ignorance." University instructor who deal with both students from the U.S. and from overseas will tell you that our kids are falling behind educationally as compared to Western Europe and to that fraction of Asian kids who have access to reasonable schools. This will predictably impinge on our well-being in the future--indeed may already be doing so. We should give our youngsters access to year-round schooling and figure out how to pay for it. It might be phased in with the extra term being offered but optional, and paid for partially by tuition offset by scholarships for those of limited means.
Plutocrat03
· 2 years ago
I am not looking for an argument about teacher compensation. As I noted I am aware of what our teacher's get paid, but have not tried to research the rest of the state.
I would argue that teacher's who want better compensation and pensions should go work at the northeast end of the state.
As far as the pension being paid for remark, I agree there is a cost. However the benefits are very much out of prooportion to what is paid in( not the state's inability to fund its pension obligations) . If the payments were designed on an actuarial basis, either the benefit would go way down, or the contribution would go way up.
This is all part of the I'll pay you tomorrow promise goverment worker's had years ago where they were promised a good pension, far in excess of Social Security for a lower than average pay package. In may areas of the state, public worker's salaries exceed what is being paid for the same job in the private sector, while still pushing an overly generous pension.
We have at least two HS teachers who are listed as having salaries of more than 121K, this could yield a pension of more than 90K plus inflation per year. Not bad compensation or a pension.
Remember many of the folks paying their property taxes have no chance of a 90K per year pension, no matter what kind of contribution they make.
So the blanket statement of teacher's need more money is nonsense. In the cases where it is poor, the steps need to be take to improve it.
Ghost
· 2 years ago
Yes, as mentioned it improves the learning curve if they continue on with the curriculum without large gaps.
It would also help out parents who would not need to find child care for such large periods of time. The three weeks after each semester is also nice, gives a more consitent break at a regular intervals
Belle
· 2 years ago
Not until enough time and study has gone by to see if it actually is or isn't a benefit. Acting before knowing how it shakes out in the long run is what 'sight reading' and the elimination of phonics was all about. Reading scores bottomed out. (I know it was only part of the problem but they tanked anyway) For once I'd like those who have the power to change education - from methods, to funding, to the class schedule - act wisely. The up scores may be an anomoly. It's too soon to tell.
irishmom07
· 2 years ago
I am a retired teacher who taught in a year round school. The reason we went to year-round was because of overcrowding. The bad thing about that was you were in a different room every three months. We got the same pay as all the other teachers. The reason some people get paid twelve months is that is how they decide to receive their pay. They could opt for being paid the nine months they work. I was in the Chicago Public Schools for eleven years and taught in parochiol schools for seven years. Never made close to the money I have read about above.
Now that school is on year round and has a little longer time off in the summer, maybe a month. That is great. You get to take vacations in off months and sometimes it's cheaper because it's off season. Imagine going to Disneyland and not have to wait will all the summer crowds. I loved year-round school except for the changing of classrooms every three months. It was so good for the kids and the teachers too. I really liked it.
I was in an air-conditioned school and that made a big difference. But, now with the kids going back to school in August it is still hot. September can be pretty uncomfortable too. If the schools could get air conditioning and/or overhead fans in the classroom that might help too.
Year-round school has my vote.
Frank Sobotka
· 2 years ago
"Brand new second-graders should know how to tell time."
Mebbe so, but is it that important anymore? The hard part - knowing the difference between hour/minute hands - is becoming irrelevant over time. Digital clocks make it a simple left-to-right reading exercise.
All Comments
But it can't happen, for a couple of reasons:
-- teacher salaries should be increased respectively, which means about a 25% increase, which the state can't afford.
-- many school buildings remain without air conditioning, so they would need to be retrofitted. The state can't pay for crumbling buildings, let alone improvements to those crumbling buildings.
We would have to provide schools that can be open during the summer. We would have to provide more money for teachers. We would have to provide more money for administrators. Please don't pretend that they would or should, do these additional months without a higher salary - you wouldn't, would you?
So while it sounds all fine and dandy, we are talking about a 40% higher costs for schools in infastructure improvements and other costs.
We can't even come up with enough money now. What makes anyone think we can come up with an additional 40% every year after such we go year-round?
Plus, I'm one who thinks teachers are underpaid to begin with.
That being said, High Schoolers still need to work during the summer and take advantage of several internship opportunities. The first one that comes to mind for a blog about government would be the U.S. Pages, though there are many, many others.
So, younger kids yes, older kids no.
And I agree with So Ill, teachers are under paid anyway. This might be a good excuse to raise it.
I can see where a year-round school would have benefits, but I just can't support it. As already mentioned, kids need time off.
High schoolers are usually more mature and they're going to be taking on more responsibilities. Especially work. So it wouldn't bother me if they didn't go to school year around.
Some of the fiscal aspect of this scheme, at least those brought up in the comments, are certainly worth looking into and working out somehow.
I believe in Las Vegas, they went to a year round schedule so that they could get more kids in a school by rotating the months off......
Kids and parents do need a break from the gind, but perhaps rather than 3 months off in one chunk, a sort of quarterly system with 3-4 week breaks between session. Should cut down on the backsliding.
Of course the infrastructure problem remains. You could phase it into the schools that are OK and if it is desireable uprades should be proposed and funded that way.
As far as a general statement from so ill, teachers in our area of the state are reasonably compensated considering their salaries and spectacularly compensated when you consider their pensions. Experienced teachers run between 80 and 110K. I do not believe that there is a compensation problem in our area, but I do not know about the other parts of the state.
The issue of high school kids needing to work summers to save for college is also compelling. High school students could attend year-round school if a college education was affordable. However, unlike some countries, we have made college unnecessarily cost-prohibitive for many kids. Our lawmakers have also ignored (until very recently) the unfair and unethical practices of the college loan industry acting in collaboration with some sleazy college administrators.
In short, I'd be in favor of year-round school if we had (1) affordable and available quality child care for all and (2)a system that allows all students who deserve a chance at continuing their education past high school a fair and affordable way to fulfill that dream. I'm not holding my breath for either to happen any time soon.
I also used the time to catch up on my professional reading--the books and magazines that I didn't get read during the school year.
It was a boon for me when I was younger in that I got a part time job for the summer to cover for vacationers or do special projects. There were other colleagues of mine who had part-time jobs during the school year that would then work full time in the summer so that others could take their vacations.
There used to be funding for summer school that came from the state. After that was eliminated, some districts cut way back on summer schools unless they could get a grant. More affluent districts had funding that could be plugged into the budget for summer school.
My former high school employer did offer summer school classes that had a fee attached. That fee paid the salary of the teacher and if the class did not meet minimum enrollment, it was not offered. Civics and driver ed were very popular but it was often hard to convince sudents who failed a course to retake it over the summer. Classes were in the mornings so the students could work afternoons or evenings if need be.
That was a good way for a student to retake a failed course or get a requirement out of the way.
So, yes, year round schooling is a good idea that's taken too long to implement. Of course, all schools will need to be air conditioned.
If teachers work the same number of actual days (thanks to shifting schooling schedules and breaks around), then any pay raise would be minimal. The real protest would be that many teachers like their summers off just as much as students do. I know teachers who use summers off to work another job for a while, or take grad school courses, or travel. So, that may be where the real protest will come into play.
But its an idea that should have been implemented long ago.
Teacher salaries are not the same across the state. I never made the a salary like that you mention. I know of teachers who never made more than half of the numbers you toss about.
And, remember, teacher retirees paid into that pension for their entire career. If a teacher had other professions and paid into social security, the SS payment is dramatically reduced.
I have had good people tell me that they would not teach after early retirement because they would not teach long enough to get a good TRS pension and they did not want to jeopardize their social security pension.
Air conditioning is an issue, but most schools HVAC systems are so outdated that the initial capital investment to update the HVAC and improve insulation in schools would actually save money--even with air conditioning--and improve air quality.
Universities and colleges would adapt to whatever schedule the school districts imposed--continued education is revenue positive for them, especially as they attract their ed. grads to their CEU courses.
Most problems listed in previous comments could be addressed. I think we should go to a year round schedule, with the school year beginning in January and ending in December. It is far more sensible. The most intractible problem, however, is the perception that 'kids need the time off'. There is this 'easy summer' myth that exists amongst middle class Americans that would be nigh impossible to overcome. In general, we are reluctant to change what we know, no matter how impractical and dysfunctional our current system is.
In addition, there is the sentimental idea that childhood should be this idyllic time. This is a recent thought. Of course, healthy, active childhoods are necessary for productive, healthy adulthoods, but too many have almost fetishized childhood. Children have an innate capacity for learning, the curiosity to explore, and the energy to do it. Finally, For many children in Illinois and nationwide, school is the safest, happiest place for them.
One thing that would need to be kept in check if year-round school was impleted would be administrative salaries. School administrators in Illinois make way too much. Springfield 186 just hired a superintendent and his starting salary is - gulp! - $220,000. That's obscene. If we do not curtail this trend, we will never have the funds to pay for additional summer costs.
The reason shorter breaks make sense is that students tend to fall back quite a bit on skills over a longer summer break, but much less so in say 4 or 6 week increments.
The logistics aren't nearly as difficult as everyone makes it out to be. First, summer classes are standards in many schools already, it would simply be an increase in the number of students. If a school isn't running summer remedial programs at a miminum, than they should be.
We should be air conditioning those schools anyway. Teacher pay would have io increase, but marginally so. Many already work summers and their total time off is about the same with year around schooling. The difference is more about not having the time all at once-which is problematic for those who work summer jobs. Even with that, people adapt.
So, you wouldn't have to pay teachers or administrators more since they would be working the same number of days. There are other logistics that might cause such a plan to fail--air conditioning being one that has been mentioned--but the idea could work.
What always gets lost in this discussion is - the amount of vacation is the same, it's just distributed equally. 3-week breaks are more appropriate for young children, and in a year-round schedule the breaks are more equally distributed throughout the year. And so logically, there's no mandate to increase teacher pay when you change systems (although I would always advocate that teachers deserve more pay).
Two months of vacation in the summer is quite enough, and by the time October rolls around everyone is ready for a two-week break. There is another two-week break at Christmas and one in Spring. Regardless of the breaks, the school is operating as usual anyway. My son, who is active in sports, is practicing year round, and really doesn’t get a break, except for our MANDATORY family vacation in July.
The building upgrades were the hardest task to address, however, our neighboring school district is just now looking at a year round calendar, and are wincing at the costs to upgrade the buildings. They wish they had addressed the issue earlier.
Year round calendars are for the best in terms of student performance (our test scores increased over the last two years) and I believe that parents who are moving into new school systems for one reason or another, will look for a school district that has a year round calendar. It could only benefit Illinois for the whole state to be on the year round system.
Some private schools have tried to go with the four day class scedule, where kids would go to school monday through thursday year round, and have fridays off.
Problem is, kids get a lot more homework now, and with after school activities, and sports, many are already involved in school activites six days a week and go yearround anyway. And with technolgy now, classes could be taught online during summer months. Colleges do it, why can't others.
According to the State Board of Education, average teacher salaries at Alan Locke Elementary are $43K a year, $20K LESS than Chicago Public School average. Before someone uses that figure to bash teacher's unions, keep in mind that the average CPS teacher has 13 years experience while the average Locke teacher has 4 years experience, which probably accounts for a big part of the salary difference.
Still, I don't think its fair to assume that year-round schools are achievable only with a massive salary increase.
Regarding student performance:
And, despite a student population that is 89% low-income and 95% black or hispanic (CPS is 85% and 86% respectively), Locke students are outperforming CPS's traditional students on almost every standardized test of basic skills.
That said, I'm a big fan of local control (part of the reason for charter public school success), and would suggest that rather than mandate year-round schools, the state provide incentives and financial support for school districts that want to go to year-round.
I'm all for eliminating the "mandatory homework" requirement for students. Homework makes sense some times for some students in some curricula, but its become a "make work" mandate that places unnecessary burdens on students, parents and teachers.
They have 4 tracts, which is 3 mo on, 1 mo off (go to school may,june,july-off aug and so forth on a rotationg schedule)and they follow it just like their students so they still get 3 mo off every year. This allows better used of the fixed facilities since they are being utilized all year.
High School is still traditional due to college requirements.
One problem as mentioned above is air conditioning which would be a requirement for this to work. Southern California can get away with it since they have nicer weather year-round. Imagine you are on the track that goes to school on June,July,Aug, off sept, in-school oct,nov,dec off jan, in school feb,mar,apr off may. Yuck!
I'm for year-round school with appropriate shorter vacations spread out in the year. I could actually do more fun things with the family in that kind of situation, regarding travel opportunities and time off from work.
I also believe the actual education they get would be better without the first 2-3 months being review and remedial.
We'd need a massive capital infusion to get the schools configured for the AC, and the energy costs of that are nothing to sneeze at either.
But it's nothing that can't be overcome. Biggest problem is psychological, overcoming about a century of habit and outmoded tradition.
More and more this is moving towards having teachers doing different kinds of work in the school over the summer. 11 month contracts or 9+2 or 3 are very common. It's far more common to expect teachers to be getting a masters or working in their district than to work random summer jobs. It's a professional occupation and so teachers treat it like one.
There will still be plenty of side jobs to work in the shorter vacations as well. ETS still needs graders for AP exams, standardized test grading, teaching workshops, etc. Masters programs already work on customized schedules for teachers so those programs will simply adopt to the new schedule.
It's a bit hard to understand the rather strange opposition to year around school. The only reason the current summer schedule exists is because it was created to adapt to an agrarian economy based on family farms. Family farms don't exist in anything similar to that form and while agriculture plays a role in the economy, it's not an agrarian based society.
Schools are doing it - which means it works and the trend will likely continue, just like uniforms in middle schools in Springfield. The school board was upset because they didn't sanction a district-wide policy for dress code, but it happened school by school because it worked.
The schools should be ugpraded with air conditioning anyway, due to the number of children with health concerns. Also, some Sept days are awful warm and as are some May and early June days.
Cermak, I think you are on to something. However, schools should offer supplemental or advanced classes for better students as a way to bolster their learning and study skills as well as possibly earning college credits.
The interesting comment I used to hear from some of the poor students is that they hated summer school and how it was unfair. Two points on this contention. First, if you screw up, you should have to correct your mistakes. Second, a worker in the real world would not be allowed to make a blunder and then not go back to fix the problem.
We have turned our students into lazy, arrogant kids. These same kids are our future. Scary.
Better check up on the old lady
No one has worked any overtime :)
I would argue that teacher's who want better compensation and pensions should go work at the northeast end of the state.
As far as the pension being paid for remark, I agree there is a cost. However the benefits are very much out of prooportion to what is paid in( not the state's inability to fund its pension obligations) . If the payments were designed on an actuarial basis, either the benefit would go way down, or the contribution would go way up.
This is all part of the I'll pay you tomorrow promise goverment worker's had years ago where they were promised a good pension, far in excess of Social Security for a lower than average pay package. In may areas of the state, public worker's salaries exceed what is being paid for the same job in the private sector, while still pushing an overly generous pension.
We have at least two HS teachers who are listed as having salaries of more than 121K, this could yield a pension of more than 90K plus inflation per year. Not bad compensation or a pension.
Remember many of the folks paying their property taxes have no chance of a 90K per year pension, no matter what kind of contribution they make.
So the blanket statement of teacher's need more money is nonsense. In the cases where it is poor, the steps need to be take to improve it.
It would also help out parents who would not need to find child care for such large periods of time. The three weeks after each semester is also nice, gives a more consitent break at a regular intervals
Now that school is on year round and has a little longer time off in the summer, maybe a month. That is great. You get to take vacations in off months and sometimes it's cheaper because it's off season. Imagine going to Disneyland and not have to wait will all the summer crowds. I loved year-round school except for the changing of classrooms every three months. It was so good for the kids and the teachers too. I really liked it.
I was in an air-conditioned school and that made a big difference. But, now with the kids going back to school in August it is still hot. September can be pretty uncomfortable too. If the schools could get air conditioning and/or overhead fans in the classroom that might help too.
Year-round school has my vote.
Mebbe so, but is it that important anymore?
The hard part - knowing the difference between hour/minute hands - is becoming irrelevant over time. Digital clocks make it a simple left-to-right reading exercise.