Should schools change from the traditional schedule to a year-round schedule?
Debate Rounds (4)
First Round: Me- Rules and layout You- accepting the layout
Second Round: Me- Introduction/ Opening Statements You- Introduction/Opening Statements. No Rebuttals
Third Round: Rebuttals
Final Round: Second Rebuttals and Conclusions. Good luck!
Thank you for setting up this debate! I accept. As the PRO, I hold that schools SHOULD change from their traditional schedule to a year round schedule. Below I will spell out my interpreatation of the resolution. This is my interpretation, not my opening arugment.
For the purpose of a clear debate, I submit that we should limit our debate over the said potential policy change to the United States of America, though we may discuss any part of the world for purposes of comparison.
Currently most schools in the United States hold school from September to May/early-June. In this debate I will hold that schools in the United States ought to hold school all year round from September 2014 to September 2015 and so on. I reserve the right to argue that schools may preserve some reasonable seasonable breaks during the summer months, just like current breaks in fall and spring for the holidays.
I look forward to this debate. I will provide my opening constructive in round 2.
TannerJK forfeited this round.
It's regrettable that CON has forfeited his first constructive response. I will provide my first constructive here, and CON will have two more opportunities in round 3 and 4 to respond.
Public educational institutions ought to hold school all year round.
First of all, I would like to thank Pro for accepting this debate. I look forward to debating this topic with you, and wish you luck. Your definitions were the same as mine. In my area, the year round schedule that was recently proposed had a period of nine weeks, followed by a three week break. I am VERY sorry that I forfeited the last round. So, in this round, I will provide a smaller version of my opening arguments as well as my rebuttals.
Some of the points Pro has listed make sense and are true. I agree that there are a few good things that could possibly come out of the proposed transition, but the disadvantages outweigh the good sides.
What will happen?:
The biggest thing I'm have against the year round schooling is the loss communities and programs will have. If the summer break, rather than about three months, becomes three weeks, what would happen to summer programs such as day cares or youth camps? Swimming pools and parks will also lose money. Also, many high school students want summer jobs, but with only a three week summer, that won't be able to happen. Many people say that kids in today's generation aren't active enough, and need more time outside. With three weeks in the summer, they don't get as big of a chance to as they would with the traditional schedule. Also, families won't be able to go on vacations as easily.
Extra costs: The year round schedule would require schools to pay more money to keep the school up all year long. Some schools are old and don't have air conditioning, so they would have to spend money on that.
Some sports team, such as football, require a large amount of practice time. Football begins practices in the summer, where they often practice two to three times a day. If most of the summer is in school, this can't happen. And, most players won't want to spend their three weeks of summer off practicing. Next, think of the groups such as choir, band or orchestra. The groups perform concerts throughout the year. If they are separated for three weeks every once in a while, they will miss practicing together and may forget parts of songs, pieces, etc.
I will present my rebuttals to each of your points, one by one:
1. Either way, students will forget things over break. Over Christmas Breaks, which normally are shorter than three weeks, students still forget things. They aren't going to focus on school work everyday they are off, so they still will forget things over any amount of break.
2. The amount of time is the same with either schedule, so year round doesn't give more time for remediation. Also, why would you use class time for that when their are students who don't need those programs when that will just hold them up? Instead, use summer school for students who are mostly at the same pace.
3. I could be misunderstanding something, this point makes absolutely no sense to me. With a three week break, everyone will try to schedule vacation at the same time, making it harder to find vacation.
4. What will happen in the three weeks off?
5. Again, I may be missing something, but I don't see what a global educational experience had to do with this debate.
6. No rebuttal.
7. There is still the same amount of school days, so their isn't more instructional time. If your point is that they don't have to waste time touching up on forgotten subjects, you saw my rebuttal to point one.
Thank you. I look forward to the next round. Good luck.
Thank you your response. I look forward to the rest of our debate. Cheers!
Year round school year increases students' test scores in STEM subjects more than students who stick to the traditional schedule.
Loyola University Dept. of Ed.http://ecommons.luc.edu...;
CON: "Some of the points Pro has listed make sense and are true. I agree that there are a few good things that could possibly come out of the proposed transition.."
I thank the CON for conceding the many advantages I spelled out in my round 2 response, such as greater educational outcomes and less learning loss over the summer. He asserts that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of a year round school year, but he fails to mention how any of his disadvantages link to the change.
CON: "What would happen to summer programs such as day cares or youth camps?"
In the status quo many students cannot afford to go to expensive summer camps, and many parents cannot afford child-care so it hurts their ability to work full time.
If schools were year round, not only would this remove the child-care burden for parents, they could have a season specific curriculum that emulates part of summer camp activities by encouraging outdoor physicaly acitivity, appreaciation for nature that links to the benefits of science education, and learning skills like swimming. This could all supplement traditionl classes in STEM (science, tech., education, and math) that American students tend to underperform in compared to the rest of the industrialized world.
CON: "The year round schedule would require schools to pay more money to keep the school up all year long. Some schools are old and don't have air conditioning, so they would have to spend money on that."
A year round schedule would require a greater investment in education to care of a myriad of matters, but this would save the public in the long run. (Most schools should invest in air conditioning anyway so students do not miss school days in early September due to excess heat.) Many American schools are woefully underfunded, and or many funds are improperly invested. More time in class and in organized activites would be a worthy investment in ways that reduce the cost of public ignorance. It would increase the education level of the American population, and this leads to citizens that make better life decisions. This would decrease imprisonment rates, improve public health, and improve the overall knowledge of the work force - especially in STEM subjects.
CON: "Extra-curricular activities: Some sports team, such as football, require a large amount of practice time."
All of this can continue in a year round school schedule. During the traditional school year, some activities practice everyday for 2 to 3 hours. This is sufficient. Educational improvements in STEM subjects outweigh less practice time in little league football leagues.
1. CON conceded that students will forget more over the summer than they do in the status quo under traditional seasonal breaks.
2. CON: "The amount of time is the same with either schedule, so year round doesn't give more time for remediation."
This is a clear contradiction. Year round school would provide more in-class time, more time with teachers, more time studying, and students can come in after school for tutoring and on the weekends. Year round schooling would only reduce the need for remediation, by keeping students ahead in their subjects.
3. A year round schedule will make scheduling a vacation easier, by spreading out vacation time throughout the entire year as opposed to having all families scheduling summer during the same 3 months of the year. Even if vacationing is harder than some, this is outweighed by the benefits of better educated society.
4. This is just an example of how it could work - not a specific detailed schedule.
5. US students could keep up with the rest of the industrialized world.
6. CON: "No rebuttal." CON has conceded this point.
7. This is one example of how it could work. There could be a year round school year with 60 more days in the year; meaning 60 more days in school. That is 20 days in the three months of the summer. If there was the same amount of time in class, but with the breaks spread out then this would reduce learning loss over the summer.
PRO is providing evidence for each of my arguments, while CON is making baseless claims. Prefer Pro's use of evidence and understanding that any supposed disadvantages that CON asserts can be erased by crafting a summer-specific curriculum. CON has conceded at least some of advantages, and none of his disadvantages link to the proposed change in the resolution; ergo you must vote PRO because the change will have a clear net benefit.
I will rebut each statement again by number.
1. I said that even though they forget things over summer, they will still forget things over the in-between breaks. Year round schooling won't affect the information lost.
2. The classroom time will stay the same. They don't gain any time.
3. Most vacations happen in the summer. When a three month window it is easier to schedule a vacation around everybody else than a three week period every few months. I still find this point of yours invalid and contradicting itself.
5. I still disagree but have no rebuttal to provide.
6. Nothing to rebut.
7. Okay. I don't agree but no rebuttal.
Closing Statements/ Conclusion:
Though some, although very few, advantages may exist, the disadvantages provided are more impacting. School extracurricular programs and community camps or programs will suffer. Thank you and good luck.
Year Round School Year = More Class Days = More Time in Class = More Learning
Con is confused. He thinks that a year round school year would have the same amount of days as a traditional school year. A year round school year would have far more class days than a traditional schedule. He keeps repeating this "three week" break time. I don't know where he's getting this.
In round 1, I defined my stance as follows:
"Currently most schools in the United States hold school from September to May/early-June. In this debate I will hold that schools in the United States ought to hold school all year round from September 2014 to September 2015 and so on. I reserve the right to argue that schools may preserve some reasonable seasonable breaks during the summer months, just like current breaks in fall and spring for the holidays."
My example of a year round school year was Sept. 2014 to Sept. 2015.
No where in this stance did I define a year round school year as having the same amount of school days as a traditional school year. I said I "reserve the right" to argue in favor of a year round school year with some breaks, such as a four day weekend like most students enjoy for Thanksgiving, but I never mentioned a schedule that featured several "three week breaks."
Scientific Evidence Proves that Year-Round Schedules Improve Test Scores
My opponent failed to engage my Loyola University Dept. of Education evidence. My opponent functionally concedes this point by ignoring the argument, and repeating this "three week" myth.
CON: "1. I said that even though they forget things over summer, they will still forget things over the in-between breaks. Year round schooling won't affect the information lost."
The longer one strays from a subject the more likely they are to forget more of it. I will forget far less if I do not practice a subject for four days, than if I stray from it for three months. Studies of academic summer programs found that students whom participated in summer academics did better, on average, than students that stuck to the traditional schedule. This is supported by my Academia.edu evidence from rd. 3.
1-2. These points were addressed above in this response.
3. First, only a minority of wealthy families can afford vacations that cannot be finished in 2-3 days. Second, a child's education outweighs whether or not she visits Disney World when he's eight years old. Better she improve in STEM subjects, and build foundational skills that will help her be accepted into an excellent college so that she can have a great life.
4. CON agreed, "okay" thereby conceding the point that a summer schedule could be flexible, and would not need to include several three-week breaks. Again, obviously a year round 12-month schedule would include more class days than the traditional 9-month schedule.
5. Con functionally concedes this point, because he cannot think of a response.
6. Con functionally concedes this point, because he cannot think of a response.
7. Con functionally concedes this point, because he cannot think of a response.
Con concedes the advantages of a year-round schedule, and cannot defend any of his disadvantages. Ergo you must vote Prof. His main concerns of scheduling vacations and more practice time are outweighed by greater learning or do not link to the proposed change. Vacations are outweighed by greater learning for students in a 12-month schedule, and students can continue to practice sports after school throughout the summer like they do during the school-year in the status-quo. Plus, Pro provided good sources for all of his contentions in round 3. Con never cited a single piece of evidence.
Con entirely dropped, thereby functionally conceding the following advantages:
1. Students would improve in essential STEM subjects
2. The burden of expensive child care during the summer will be lifted off of working-class parents, and be taken care of by the school.
3. I link-turned his concern about summer programs. Summer programs can continue after school gets out, and on the weekends. Plus a 12-month schedule could have a seasonal curriculum to mirror summer programs' in their focus on nature, and out-door fun while being more rigorous in assigning research projects, for example, on the science of trees, bees and flowers. This way summer-like programs will be accessible to everyone, not just the middle class and upper-middle-class students that can afford them.
4. Increasing school funding for a 12-month schedule, air-conditioning, and better instructional materials will be an investment that will reap returns in lower imprisonment rates (see Slate-rd.3), better test scores, higher college attendance, and a better more educated society.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro since Con forfeited a round, I lean Pro but not by enough to award points, also Con work on your souces if you simply list a few sources (2-3) than voting will work out alot better for you.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.