The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 747 times Debate No: 36734
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




As an opponent, I would prefer to have someone who is currently in college, or is a professional educator of any sort of institution.

My point of views are coming from an American schooling system, I understand other countries may have different schedules. I attended a university that operated on a year-round 11 week quarter schedule, as opposed to the normal 15 week semester.

My First Point: the American schooling system schedule originated with respect to the farming schedule. Summers were given as time off so that children could help with life around the farm during the growing months (the most important ones). While this was fair and logical when agriculture was life-sustaining for the average family, and when small farmers were important to the economy, this sort of lifestyle is no longer as prevalent, or time consuming (mostly due to agriculture technology and large agriculture corporations). Our schooling schedule is a relic of the past.

My Second Point: data shows that there is a significant drop off in acquired knowledge during the 2-3 months that students have off in the summer. This test data shows a drop off in all major areas of study, particularly language comprehension, writing, and mathematics. This drop off causes a lag in the acquired knowledge/skills for the proceeding year. It causes teachers to use valuable progressive education time to review material that was learned in the previous year and forgotten over the summer break. An attempted countermeasure to this that was implemented decades ago, is summer reading. But this is not enough to maintain the skills acquired from the previous year. (If my opponent decides to disagree with this point, I would be happy to show at least a dozen studies that prove this point)

My Third Point: This year-round schedule would greatly help parents, particularly single parents, who work normal hours. During the summer, parents need to either be home, pay for a sitter, or send their child to camp, while they are at work. This year-round schooling would relieve many parents from financial burdens.

My Fourth Point: The state and federal governments mandate a minimum required number of hours for students to attend school each year. Most public schools plan and operate on this minimum required schedule, while planning for the potential emergency cancellation day. A year round schedule would allow for more flexibility in adjusting the scheduling, and could accommodate students who observe various religious holidays.

My Fifth Point: With a year-round schedule, the aforementioned minimum schedule would be easily met. This could shorten the average school day and allow for more time of the 'arts' that are usually the first ones to be removed during financial hardship. This would also allow for more physical education time, and sports practice time after school. As well as homework time (assuming this type of school system would require homework).

My Sixth Point: America's public school system has dropped in it's world ranking. I believe this is largely due to the minimum graduation standard of knowledge, and the knowledge lost during the summer break months. This year-round schedule would allow for students to receive almost an additional year of schooling, relative to the current 4 year schedule, thus allowing for knowledge that reaches into the average college level.

Whomever should accept, please stick to the larger points, and avoid such things as, lunch/recess time or vacation time. I would prefer a current educator accept this debate.

Thank you, and good luck.


The American Schooling System is quite unique in its own way. The education system is the one of the only systems where someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education.

I would have to argue that even though your idea is moral it would bring a huge burden to the tax payers in this country, you claim that it would save money to parents but at the same time they would be paying much more in taxes for these salaries going to teachers
Debate Round No. 1


Im a little disappointed with the rebuttal, I was hoping for a response with some counter-arguemets.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement "someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education" Do you mean a decrease in the education of the teacher? Or the teacher becoming a worse teacher to the students? Either way this doesn't completely make sense. There are teachers that can improve or worsen in their teaching over time, but all schools have annual or more frequent, workshops to develop their teaching skills.

Even tho the teachers contracts are based on an entire 'year' of work. Their contracts would have to be re-negotiated based on the number of hours worked. But, the less-stringent schedule to meet the strict curriculum requirements , would have to be considered as well as the shorter work day.

You are correct, the taxes would increase, and this would likely cause the combining of school districts to consolidate the tax-payers (because local property owners pay school taxes regardless of whether or not they have children). My argument was more towards the inconvenience of having to care for/making sure they are cared for by someone, while the parents are at work. Most of the options for child care, do not include furthering their education. Which is money well spent vs having your child play at a day care center.


I apologize i did not meet your requirements to debate.

I might not have been clear with the tenure. I am a believer in a system that does not tenure their employees after a certain number of years. I would ask you if you would see a doctor that had tenure and no matter what happened after a surgery that person would still have a job.

In respect to your argument with shorter work days how does that even make sense? An average work day for a parent is 9am-5pm assuming you wanted a child to be released earlier then where would that child go?

I am just confused as to how this would be implemented. Do you think that a tax payer with no children would be willing to pay more in education so someone elses child could stay in school the entire year?

Salaries have been a big debate throughout years and I believe that adding more hours would only spark more debate and ultimately fail. Dont get me wrong the idea itself is very noble but the funding doesnt seem to add up
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for the more challenging rebuttal.

I think the topic over teacher's unions/contracts/tenures is a separate issue. Yes, it is very hard to fire a teacher who performs poorly, even after years of parental complaints and poor performance reviews from administrators. I had a very bad teacher in 6th grade, everyone knew she was bad, and for years, people wrote formal complaints about her, eventually the school administrators moved her into a mobile-trailer classroom outside the school to teach 'basic skills' just to get her away from the rest of the students. Private schools do not have teaching unions, so this problem is non-existent there. There's no perfect system for finding perfect employees, but once again, that's another issue.

As for the time scheduling, schools release their students around 2:30 PM, which is still way before the standard work day. If the student plays sports, then they attend that. If they are not old enough and require additional care after school, almost every public school has an after-hours care. I attended one for a time as well. The time there was spent doing HW and playing games with the other kids. This was an additional cost to parents, but it's within reason, (i can not give accurate costs) my parents were by no means wealthy.

The money/funding is really the biggest issue and what education will come down to. We all want a better society, a better economy and job market, but how can we expect that with low education standards, and sinking education rankings relative to other countries? It all starts with a good education, it's not always a tangible thing, but it's something society has to make a decision on together for the greater good. We already put a high value on education at the advanced level (college). I have friends that just graduated with $120k-$180k in loan debt over 4-5 years. This was from an expensive university, but you see my point. Why is a 4-5 year education worth so much, but the education you receive for the previous 13 years any less important?

The school budget in my hometown was often voted down because there was a large population of senior citizens that would vote the budget down because they didn't want their taxes to go up, even the smallest bit. The school system was not very good, and my parents sent me away to private school because of this. Now that many of them have died (sry to say this), and people with children have moved in, the people who care about their children's education vote the budget up knowing their taxes are being spent on their own children, thus granting the school more for the students. My younger brother is now attending a school that my parents once dreaded the thought of ever sending me to.

I personally do not have all the details figured out, I can imagine smaller school districts merging with larger ones to make the system more cost effective. But the idea is to enable and push the minimum standards of education, and this is a decision that society must make. I believe that a viable approach through year-round schooling can be achieved.

My inspiration for this topic came from TED Talks conference on Education, and from one of the talks in particular. I will post the link below.

Thanks for debating.

This is the specific talk.

If you are interested in other education talks, just YouTube search: TED Talks Education 2013


rightway89 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SeanCEyler 3 years ago
Just a side-fact. I talked about the school scheduling system to be a relic of the past. Well, here's another one people often dont know about.

Back when train robbing was a real threat (1800's), the seats on the passenger trains (particularly the coast-to-coast ones), were deliberately made to be rigid, upright, and somewhat uncomfortable. This was to help keep the passengers awake in the case of an attack on the train. This seat-trend has not changed. Trains and airplanes still have the same kind of uncomfortable upright and rigid seats.

Yes, they are trying to cram as many people as possible into the train/plane, but with everything that we have invented and created, we haven't come up with space-efficient and comfortable seats? Think about it.
Posted by PiningForASilverLining 3 years ago
Con seems to think the teacher's salary would change, I'm not sure why. If that's the premise for their argument against year round school schedule, that's weak.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's rebuttal was more thorough.