Summary of Findings in the January 2002 Report 

Published by the Education Policy Research Unit, 

Education Policy Studies Laboratory, 

College of Education, Arizona State University.

All quotes are from Section 4 of the report:

Time for School: Its Duration and Allocation

by Dr. Gene V. Glass

"The original proposals to operate year-round schools (YRS) came from 

a consideration of the economics of school construction rather than any 

consideration of learning gains."  School districts around the county have 

dropped year-round schooling due to the increased cost of the program 

verses the traditional school calendar.  (Time to Learn Note:  Newspaper 

clips show many school districts have dropped year-round education due 

to the increased cost of operation and the lack of academic gains.)

         

Several studies have reached the conclusion that there is no significant 

difference in achievement between students in year-round schools and 

students attending traditional calendar schools.  

         

Proponents of year-round school often report that having small breaks 

during the year is better academically.  "These arguments often rely on 

data drawn from laboratory experiments where subjects memorize 

nonsense syllables or perform other non-meaningful tasks.  The 

relevance of these studies to actual classroom practice is questionable."

         

Students normally receive the same number of days of instruction 

regardless of the calendar configuration. 

         

"The 45-15 plan (45 days of instruction followed by 15 days of vacation) is 

the most popular year-round attendance plan because all students have 

a summer vacation."

         

"High schools do not favor the 45-15 schedule because it limits summer 

job opportunities."

         

Vacation learning loss is often said to be less in year-round systems 

and assumed to translate into higher academic success.  Not so.  

According to researchers Smith and Glass "although teachers in year-

round schools spent less time reviewing pre-vacation material than 

teachers in schools on the traditional calendar, the actual achievement 

differences were insignificant on tests designed specifically to measure 

district objectives."

         

"Changes in the calendar by which those 180 days are delivered are 

very unlikely to yield higher levels of pupil achievement.  In terms of pupil 

achievement, it matters not at all whether those 180 days are interrupted 

by one long recess or four short ones."

         

Most importantly to point out to school board members spouting the 

benefits of YRE, Dr. Glass points out, "Not all studies have failed to find 

achievement advantages for the year-round calendar.  Those that do 

claim advantages, however, stem disproportionately from an advocacy 

organization that has grown up around this issue:  the National 

Association for Year-Round Education (. NAYRE publishes its own 

research reports, and avoids established peer-reviewed scholarly 

journals.  'Negative' studies have tended to come form researchers 

working in universities."