home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.education
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!cbrown.claremont.edu!dhosek
- From: dhosek@cbrown.claremont.edu
- Subject: Re: School Year Round
- Message-ID: <1992Nov16.231300.1@cbrown.claremont.edu>
- Lines: 21
- Sender: news@muddcs.claremont.edu (The News System)
- Organization: Quixote Digital Typography
- References: <1992Nov16.021238.15155@news.cs.brandeis.edu> <BxuI4r.5yr@access.digex.com>
- Date: 16 Nov 92 23:13:00 PDT
-
- In article <BxuI4r.5yr@access.digex.com>, mjensen@access.digex.com (MPJensen) writes:
- >>hunter@master.lds-az.loral.com (Bill Hunter) writes:
-
- >>I am a School Board Member in Arizona. We are currently reviewing a
- >>schedule change from traditional to year Round classes... I am looking
- >>for some strong arguments for and against this issue.
-
- > Keeping school buildings in continuous use will increase maintenance
- > costs and utility expenditures. A Nebraska district estimated at least a
- > 25% increase (mostly from AC--hot summers!)
-
- On the other hand, it will cost considerably less to pay a
- teacher X% more than to add X% more teachers. This is the main
- justification for year-round schooling in most places that do it:
- by running school year round, fewer teachers can teach more
- students without having over-large classes. Someone described a
- model where all students were present all year. Never heard of
- that. More common is 2/3 of the students are in school at any
- given semester.
-
- -dh
-