Hamilton Holiday Kids Parade
Truancy Court in Butler County
.JPG)
2009 Ohio State football
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2009 > February > 18 > Entry
Well, I guess that didn’t work
So Dayton’s school board has decided to junk it’s hybrid school calendar that started school early in favor of longer fall and spring breaks and return to a traditional calendar?
Interesting, especially since it was little more than a year ago that the school board president was telling me the district wouldn’t change course on the calendar even after canceling school due to heat because the educational benefits of the longer calendar were too important.
The truth is, the current calendar never made sense. It was a bad (and unnecessary) compromise. Add in the district’s failure to implement its vision for the calendar and parental disinterest and the calendar was a pretty big flop.
Here’s the quick history. The Gail Littlejohn/Kids First school board was in love with the idea of year-round school. They were completely sold on the idea that research was conclusive that kids backslid during summers. (In fact, the research is very mixed on this question.) To Kids First, summer was bad.
At the time Kids First came along, it inherited a bizarre bell schedule that had about a third of the district’s school on a year-round calendar with six-week summers and three-week breaks in fall and spring while the rest were on a traditional calendar with 12-week summers. This was incredibly costly as buses were running all year long.
Kids First wanted to put the whole district on a year-round calendar. But the board was afraid that kids wouldn’t show up for school until September. So they decided to split the difference and put everyone on the hybrid calendar with a 10-week summer and two-week breaks in spring and fall.
The smarter move back then would have been to realize that a traditional calendar made the most sense. But the board really believed it could use the breaks for intervention for kids and training for teachers. But those ideas were both busts. Hardly any kids signed up for the intervention even though it was free and included breakfast, lunch and transportation. Training never got off the ground. Teachers took vacation instead.
So now with a new board and superintendent, the district had decided to throw in the towel on this calendar and go back to a tradition approach. I’m interested in what students and teachers in the district think. Are you glad to see the hybrid calendar go? Or had you come to like it? Tell us in the comments.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By Jeffrey Mims
April 27, 2009 11:31 AM | Link to this
Thanks for your thoughts. We have listened to many of the concerns from parents, community members, teachers and even students,(smile). This provides us a better structure for teaching and learning.By retiredteacher
March 26, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this
Too many times the Dayton Public Schools try new things without researching their effects on kids. To have kids going to school in August without air conditioning in the old buildings was ludicrous. Now that there are more new buildings, going to school year round makes sense and may improve school attendance. There are no snow days in the summer. Someone should compared the two school calendars to see which one could save the most money on utility bills.By Barb
February 24, 2009 10:46 PM | Link to this
It seems as if few realize the reasoning was in part to provide more days in school before the testing in March. For most grade levels the testing dates have changed so there is no longer the same need. I think many schools found the same issue that is always plaguing them, the students who needed intersession time the most were not the ones attending. Although academically lower students and their parents were encouraged to take advantage of the help being provided their parents did not sign them up. Unfortunately it takes the cooperation of the parent. I also very much doubt the public school encourages the use of its buses for charter and parochial schools. Isn’t that a state mandate?By teacher and taxpayer
February 24, 2009 8:29 PM | Link to this
Terry, no form of the year round calendar offered more face time with students. The required days were simply distributed differently.By Terry Ryan
February 20, 2009 12:53 PM | Link to this
I’m not in a postion to comment per the effectivenss of the district’s extended calendar. But I do know when it was implemented in 2005 the idea was that children in DPS schools - being far behind their more fortunate peers in suburban districts academically - need more instructional seat time if there is to be any hope of closing the achievement gaps plaguing DPS students. I seriously hope this is not a move back towards business as usual for the district. We know business as usual in Dayton doesn’t work for its children. Consider that the reading achievement gap between students in Dayton and students statewide has actually grown over the last three years. Jetisoning something that doesn’t work and trying something different that might is smart, but saying that DPS can meet the needs of its students by doing what the surrounding suburban districts do is sure to fail more of Dayton’s children. Now is not the time for Dayton and its schools to stop innovating and experimenting.By Concerned Mom of 3
February 19, 2009 10:29 PM | Link to this
The research on traditional school calendar verses year round calendar is very mixed. Some studies make traditional and all the benefits that go along with it sound like the best way, but other studies show exactly the opposite. In DPS, the families either loved the year round calendar- or they didn’t. Back when the year round calendar had three week breaks, there was actually enough time to take advantage of intervention/extension classes- and still have a bit of a break. The two week breaks were too short. As a parent, I didn’t want to waste half of the time off driving my kids to and from school- for half day sessions. If I sent the kids to the intersession classes when we had two week breaks, I always ran out of time to fit in all the day trips to the farm, zoo, museum, library, bowling alley, Cox arboretum, etc… The bottom line in DPS right now is saving money and putting the resources into helping students achieve. Since DPS has to provide the transportation for all of the chater/parochial/private schools, it makes sense to have everyone follow similar calendars. Then the district doesn’t have pay to run the busses as much. (I personally loved the year round calendar because I used the breaks to provide enrichment experiences- and I had a chance to enjoy the different seasons with my kids.) But, I can certainly see the wisdom of following the traditional calendar. It is a financially sound decision. Dr. Stanic is holding to the focus of keeping the teachers, administrators, teachers union, school board and superintendent working together for the kids. Any time and energy spent arguing over the calendar is wasted energy… Think about this… What is the worst thing that could happen as a result of moving back to the traditional calendar??? In the scope of everything the district is facing, this is somewhat minor. Keep the focus where it should be.. Teaching and Learning.By LoveYearRoundSchool
February 19, 2009 3:50 PM | Link to this
I absolutely LOVED the year round schedule. The 2 weeks off kept me revived and energized for my students. It allowed me to make adjustments to my lessons during that time off. The kids get antsy(& as well as Staff) by the time the 2 weeks came - everyone was in need for the break. I’m not happy about going back to the traditional calendar. My students get a “more rested me” when we are on the year round calendar. If the district is interested in saving money, then why can’t the charter schools and private schools that they must supply transportation to be forced to change to the same calendar as DPS…By Either way
February 19, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this
Either way is fine. Having the fall break was nice, but it did impede learning. And it messed with certain tests. One thing about the interventions planned for breaks: they did happen the first year and were reasonably well-attended. But, they WERE a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed and they were dropped the next year because of budget constraints (and never revived). I’m glad Dr. Stanic is making bold moves. That’s what I think of as leadership.By crisp
February 19, 2009 12:24 PM | Link to this
Thank goodness!! I remember some former board members touting the benefits of the modified school year and I said it was a bad idea. I was told children would get so much benefit and they would be smarter but no one at that time could tell me why other districts weren’t jumping on that bandwagon if that was really the case. A very smart move by the board to overturn that idea. Maybe the community may have half a shot in helping with truancy issues etc. if they aren’t guessing when the students should be in school!