The Instigator
debatemaster10
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stonewall
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should we implement year round schooling in all public schools?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Stonewall
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,274 times Debate No: 38403
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

debatemaster10

Con

It's the worst time of the year. Students, teachers, even parents hate it. Year round schooling. I am here to negate against this. Having year round schooling would increase the stress of both teachers and students. Teachers and students are already stressed with the regular school calendar. Why add more stress to them? Just for a little more education? I believe that we should leave the calendar the way it is. The more stress these students endure, the more students will drop out, and we won't have any future leaders. The more stress these teachers get, the more teachers will quit and having these teachers quitting would impact our society in a bad way. So, with today's questions asked, should we implement year round schooling in all public schools, the answer is no, we shouldn't.
Stonewall

Pro

I will be taking the Pro side, saying that we should implement year-round schools.

"Having year round schooling would increase the stress of both teachers and students. Teachers and students are already stressed with the regular school calendar."

You didn't mention this in your argument, so I'm not sure if you're aware of it: Year-round schools have the same amount of actual class time. The only difference is that year-round schools are more spread out... more small vacations spread out over the course of the year instead of three big vacations (Spring, Winter, and Summer). As for the stress factor, this would mainly stay the same, since school time is about the same. In fact, there are more breaks in-between, thus reducing stress. 1, 2 - This goes for any mention of stress in your point, including your two slippery slope fallacies ("The more stress these students endure..." and "The more stress these teachers get...").

The stress factor seems to be the sole focus of your debate, and since it's been proved to actually be the opposite, this argument falls flat. Now for my points.
___

First, off, as I stated before, year-round schools have more breaks throughout, and thus relieves the stress of teachers and students alike. For more info, you can visit the links I provided at the bottom. But the point itself is pretty simple: More breaks help chop up the school year and make it easier to deal with.

Next, the reason we had massive summer breaks in the first place was originally due to students having to help their families on the farm during the growing season. "Harris Cooper, chairman of the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience at Duke University explained, 'the present nine-month calendar emerged when 85 percent of Americans were involved in agriculture and when climate control in school buildings was limited.'" 3 Today, only three percent of Americans live on farms, and most (if not all) schools have climate control. Thus, any reasons for having a three-month break in the first place is no longer of any value.

Finally, schools with fewer but extended breaks diminish the value of children's education. That long without school work is very detrimental to students' overall education- about one month of education lost over the course of those three. 4 With a shorter summer break, much less information would be lost. It goes without saying that information retention is one of the main points of school in the first place.

I look forward to the rest of our debate.

1: http://thetyee.ca...
2: http://www.cde.ca.gov...
3: http://www.psmag.com...
4: http://www.ldonline.org...
Debate Round No. 1
debatemaster10

Con

debatemaster10 forfeited this round.
Stonewall

Pro

Welp, hope this isn't a sign of how the rest of the debate goes.

Looking forward to a response. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
debatemaster10

Con

The stress factor isn't the only argument I have. I have more arguments. Year round schooling seems to be the factor to change the way of learning. Even if it may help, it will cost way too much money. Our economy is already 17 trillion dollars in debt, as a nation. That's only within the USA. It would cost about a million for transportation, 5 million for food services, 9 million for the maintenance and teachers and other employees, and about 7 million for books and the schedule. You may believe I'm crazy, but its true that schools have to pay a whole lot of money for just a schedule. The schedule is what we're looking at. Also the cost. The schedule is very critical. In order to pick the right schedule, schools will have to be willing to spend a large sum of money. There's a problem with that though. How will schools be able to pay for the schedule they want, if they can't even pay decent lunch and textbooks and other learning equipment for kids. Also, not a lot of schools have a lot of money. Some schools seem so clean and nice and have good learning tools and provide good food services. However, they are in debt. Bankrupt. Hard for them to pay back money with the cost of year round school.

Vote for CON =P
Stonewall

Pro

"(Year-round schools) will cost way too much money."

To be fair, the debate was if we should implement year-round schools, not if we could. In either case, this will be addressed in my later points.

"It would cost about a million for transportation, 5 million for food services, 9 million for the maintenance and teachers and other employees, and about 7 million for books and the schedule."

I don't necessarily deny this information is true, but I still want some sort of citation on it. I've looked all over and can't find anything on it specifically. For all I know, you're pulling these numbers out of a hat.

"Also, not a lot of schools have a lot of money. Some schools... are in debt. Bankrupt."

I hear ya, man. My mom's a teacher, and I hear a lot about how our school systems are facing financial difficulties. I don't think you're crazy; on the contrary, I know as much as anyone the problems schools are seeing these days. But implementing year-round schedules into schools that can financially support it right off the bat is the first step to bettering our financial situation.

Many schools, due to rising population rates, are having to close down. Let's be honest: Having your school shut down is a tad less appealing than simply being in a money fix. If schools don't shut down completely, teachers need to be laid off due to our cruddy economy and inauspicious schedules, and student-per-classroom counts are growing substantially, which results in poorer attention to students. The solution? A multi-track year-round school. Students have different schedules (e.g., half the students going to school when other students are on their break, amongst many other tried and successful methods), resulting in less crowded classrooms, more attention to individual students, and teachers with more job security. These are all undeniably beneficial to a poor economy, whether in the long-run or the near future.

Do I think that we can just make all schools year-round in the course of 12 months? Of course not; that's ludicrous. But with proper attention and timing and planning, year-round schools could slowly be implemented the country over, and our financial fix would be better off for it. Maybe not perfect, but definitely better.

I extend my previous round's points. I'd also like to remind my opponent that he's more than welcome to address multiple points per round. Thanks for the speedy response!
Debate Round No. 3
debatemaster10

Con

debatemaster10 forfeited this round.
Stonewall

Pro

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 4
debatemaster10

Con

debatemaster10 forfeited this round.
Stonewall

Pro

I believe this debate's limited content speaks for itself. Vote for whoever made the better argument.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jebediah-Kerman 3 years ago
Jebediah-Kerman
debatemaster10StonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Just happened to see this argument, both put up good(ish) points, I think the debate goes to Pro for better arguments and all of that.